Town creating new Parks Department position

[Lee Chowaniec]

This coming Monday, May 6th, the town will be voting on a resolution to authorize the preparation of PO-17 Form to create a new position in the Parks / Recreation / Forestry Department – Assistant Park Crew Chief. The position is being requested by Parks Crew Chief Barbaro. The resolution is being sponsored by Supervisor Coleman.

The language of the resolution is lacking in detail and I would hope some resident Monday would ask for clarification as to:

• What precipitated the need for this position?

• What exactly will the duties of the assistant crew chief be? What services will this individual provide to better our community?

• Will this position be salaried or hourly and compensated with overtime?

• What will the salary structure of the new position be? Cost to the town with benefits included?

• Will the position be open to public bid and where required experience and qualifications are posted – as well as letters of intent posted in the communications.

Comments

Parks

Since the Coleman administration took over in 2017, the Parks budget has increased by 22.4%; $157,112 (from $699,967 to $857,0792).

The department added one laborer in 2017. In that three-year budget period the wages of the hourly staff increased by 47.2%; $147,577 (from $312,876 to $460,453).

Buildings

2016 - $535,964
2019 - $698,734

Culture & Recreation

2016 - $158,647
2019 - $242,945

Playgrounds & Recreation

2016 - $163,250
2019 - $151,460

Pool

2016 - $103,250
2019 - $110,650

Totals

2016 - $1,557,828
2019 - $2,060,868

$ Increase in spending - $503,040
% Increase in spending – 32.3%

Is it therefore unreasonable for someone to question the board on the need for this job creation, the cost to the taxpayer, and position duties that serve the best interest of the community when the operation for the aforementioned departments has increased by 32.3% over the three past budgets? I think not and hope some resident speaks up on this resolution.

[shortstuff]

This is a proposal right Lee? It will be interesting to see the voting record of each council member. Especially Dawn. This increase in spending is no surprise considering a Democrat leads the town.

In another matter, Dawn Gaczewski voted YES to Deputy Highway Superintendent to receive the same percentage increase in salary as the union members received. The Deputy Superintendent also receives a $62,000 pension at the present time. He will also have to pay an increase in his healthcare contributions. Ron Ruffino voted NO. My question would be, if Dawn is considered a Registered Conservative, is this fiscally responsible coming from a Conservative? So how would Dawn vote on this proposal in the aforementioned?

[Lee Chowaniec]

I was so off the mark on this resolution. This resolution was for the creation of a seasonal part time position to assist Parks Crew Chief Michelle Barbaro in training and overseeing seasonal (5 months) park workers – not a full time position.

However, the resolution was so lacking in information that even Councilman Matt Walter had to ask about the resolution at the work session regarding employment term, job description and work duties.

Supervisor Coleman explained that the position created:

Would be part time but that the individual could work up to 40 hours – no overtime or benefits

Position pays $18.50

Like all seasonal jobs, 5 months in duration and the individual selected would have an option to return to regular part time permanent duty ($12.50) at 19 hours per week

Meeting

When asked at the regular meeting public comment session on the pre-filed resolution for clarification, as it was lacking in detail, Supervisor Coleman stated that although confusing the resolution was so written to present it to the county for certification. Coleman added that it was not a competitive position and that the individual chosen for the position is experienced and would be a good fit for the training end of it.

Resolution #24 approval

Prior to the vote, Councilman Ron Ruffino questioned as to why the position was needed. Barbaro explained that there were numerous seasonal employees not having any experience in handling parks equipment. As her time was limited from handling other obligations, she felt it important to have an assistant that has the experience, skills, and knowledge to supervise the crews, assist in safety training and oversee daily assignments (as stated in her request to the board). *

Ruffino then declared that the position has not been advertised on the town website or put up for competitive bid. He claimed it would be a perfect fit for someone near retirement and wanting to cut back on working hours.

Council member Dawn Gaczewski interjected that she agreed with Ruffino, not because of lack of transparency, but because of hiring process.

Supervisor Coleman once again declared the position was non competitive and that Mr. Cook was selected because as stated in crew chief Barbaro’s written request to the board that Cook has the experience, skills, and knowledge to supervise the crews, assist in safety training and oversee daily assignments.

Coleman then told Gaczeweki that she was surprised at her comment as it was her that requested, I go forward with this, and I did.

Parks Crew Chie Barbaro’s letter of request was submitted to the board on April 30 – communication #327.

The resolution was approved 3-2; Ruffino and Walter voting no.

All this drama because of a piss-poor written resolution lacking in substance.

Not lacking in transparency, seriously?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Parks Crew chief Michelle Barbaro and the three town board members who voted to approve a resolution to hire John Cook as part time crew chief for the Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Department acted accordingly - IMHO.

The write up in today’s Lancaster Bee makes the reasons for his hire quite clear:

The Lancaster Town Board created a new position for assistant park crew chief who will supervise the Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Department as well as train new temporary seasonal employees.

John Cook, a part-time employee in the department, was appointed to the new position on Monday. Cook will be paid $18.50 per hour and work up to 40 hours each week for a period not to exceed five months. Being a part-time temporary seasonal position, no health insurance, sick days, vacations or other fringe benefits will be provided.

With only three seasonal laborers returning to work this summer, Parks Crew Chief Michelle Barbaro said she needed assistance in training the new hires. “I have 15 brand new employees plus 11 laborers … so that’s around 28 people in my department. I can’t be everywhere,” said Barbaro. I took it from within because he’s within the department working and he knows the crews”.

Ms. Barbaro has been frequently lauded for her accomplishments since becoming the Parks crew chief in 2017. Unfortunately, department heads, those in administrative positions and those serving on Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals are not recognized for the work they perform behind the scenes to make the town board look good. It would be unfortunate should those committed and qualified in their appointed positions be replaced by unqualified people appointed because of patronage employment promises made by candidates should they get elected into office. Elections do have consequences!

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
It would be unfortunate should those committed and qualified in their appointed positions be replaced by unqualified people appointed because of patronage employment promises made by candidates should they get elected into office. Elections do have consequences!

I believe, that would have been true in Michelle Barbaro's case as she would have had to be in the position 5 years to be protected.
As I understand it, Michelle really does not have to worry about the election consequences in regards to losing her job.

Last November, she reached an agreement which affords her the protection of Civil Service law section 75. Civil Service law section 75 provides that a covered employee may not be removed or otherwise subjected to disciplinary penalty except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing on stated charges . . . Once raised, the defense must be considered and determined as part of the hearing officer's decision.

So, a new board can't just come in and appoint a new park crew chief at their whim.

[Lee Chowaniec]

I believe, that would have been true in Michelle Barbaro's case as she would have had to be in the position 5 years to be protected.
As I understand it, Michelle really does not have to worry about the election consequences in regards to losing her job.

Last November, she reached an agreement which affords her the protection of Civil Service law section 75. Civil Service law section 75 provides that a covered employee may not be removed or otherwise subjected to disciplinary penalty except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing on stated charges . . . Once raised, the defense must be considered and determined as part of the hearing officer's decision.

So, a new board can't just come in and appoint a new park crew chief at their whim.

I disagree. As Barbaro’s position is an appointed one, she serves at the will of the board and can be replaced at its will.

I believe the arrangement you speak of is one that relates to job performance removal and just cause.

Also keep in mind that a newly elected board, should they choose to do so, abolish the crew chief position and recreate it as something else and with someone else as an administrator.

No one in an ‘appointed’ position is ‘bullet proof’. Seen them come and go over the years – and with no explanation as to why.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:

I disagree. As Barbaro’s position is an appointed one, she serves at the will of the board and can be replaced at its will.

I guess, I did not understand it that way. Prior to this agreement, if a new board came in and said that they did not want her she would be gone.

I believe the arrangement you speak of is one that relates to job performance removal and just cause.

Yes, that is the only way she could be removed, as I understand it for job performance. Or as you stated, they abolished the position.

Listen to Coleman -

https://soundcloud.com/user-78408220...ession#t=20:15