My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/12/1995 PERSONNEL BOARD Minutes
>
4/12/1995 PERSONNEL BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2018 3:38:27 PM
Creation date
12/21/2018 3:38:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PERSONNEL BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/12/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
PERSONNEL BOARS MINUTES WAGE 2 <br /> MEETING ING Off' APRIL 12, 1995 <br /> Meg Ryan admitted that they were several weeks behind schedule. She said that there <br /> are a few positions that are being revised with significant charges to their job <br /> descriptions. <br /> Bob asked if the preliminary findings incorporate the revisions. Meg replied that they did <br /> a preliminary evaluation and one of the main things they hope to accomplish is to ask for <br /> reactions to the compensation plan. She said that there might still be something missing <br /> that no one is picking up. She pointed out that the materials are preliminary and they <br /> want to find out if they are on track. <br /> Bob whriten ur asked Meg to go through the classification findings. Meg said that <br /> they sent back the draft of the job descriptions for review and comment. Bob said that <br /> some had problems with them and he was under the assumption that the department head <br /> and the employee had a chance to look thein over. Meg commented that had been done <br /> as there were two copies seat out -- one to the employee and one to the supervisor. <br /> Joe Dellagala asked what makes the job descriptions valid. Meg said that if a change is <br /> made, the consultant team does not automatically put it in. Some employees made <br /> stylistic changes which were included, Joe asked how would they know if someone is <br /> overstating the job description? Meg said that along vith collecting inf rnati n through <br /> the use of a questionnaire, they talked to employees and they sent the draft of the job <br /> description to the employee and the department head. Through this process, they get a <br /> good sense ofthe job. Bob Whriten ur commented that they produce a final job <br /> description. when adopted they become official job descriptions, Meg said that some of <br /> the job descriptions had more substantial changes which she wanted to get a certain level <br /> of review. There are four of these which they would like a first draft and second draft. <br /> Meg said that the Board should have those immediately. She said they could have all the <br /> fifli <br /> es. <br /> With regard to the classification plan, Meg said that there is a new system with seventeen <br /> grades. Joe asked if they could compare the money. Meg said that they work from job <br /> descriptions to the evaluation process to the classification plan. They gthrough the , <br /> evaluation process and every position gets a numerical sere. For example, grades one <br /> and two -- no position was evaluated at this grade. <br /> Bob whritenour said that the first issue he has starts on Grade 7. The Administrative <br /> Assistant to the Board of Selectmen position does not exist. Where is an Administrative <br /> Secretary and an Administrative Assistant position. He said that there are issues with the <br /> job description which need to be addressed on the 'rrad a 8,, Administrative Assistant t <br /> the Executive Secretary. Bob commented Haat there are also serious issues with the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.