ORDER-2021-43 : An Appropriation from free cash, account 01-324001, in the amount of $50,000 to HR Professional Services, account 011522-529000, to fund a compensation and classification study.

Transcript (~47 min @ 52:13)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 52:10 Jeff McNaught: Okay. Next up is an appropriation from free cash, number 20, Order 2021-43, an appropriation from free cash amount or account. I'm sorry, my eyes are failing me. It's getting late in the evening. Account 01-324-001, and the amount of $50,000 in HR professional services. Account 011-522-529000 to fund a compensation and classification study. I believe we have our HR director, Ms. Lada here with us.

▶ 52:54 Speaker 1: Coming in now.

▶ 53:03 Speaker 1: Good evening. Happy new year.

▶ 53:06 Jeff McNaught: Likewise the floor is yours.

▶ 53:09 Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. So, the purpose of the request tonight is for funds for the city of Melrose to hire consultants in order to conduct a. Comprehensive compensation classification study. For 65 positions, including department heads and staff. With this funding order, we're looking to invest in the city of Melo as an employer and modernize our pay system.

▶ 53:46 Speaker 1: Just like we invest in our physical structures in the city, it is time that we invest in our compensation structure. The last non-union classification study was done in 1988, which was over 30 years ago. So a lot has changed since then. So our goals are to be able to conduct a comprehensive review of our current compensation and classification system, to review and potentially rewrite job descriptions if necessary, if they are identified as needing attention, so that every job description would uniformly reflect the the essential functions of the job, the minimum qualifications, education, knowledge, skills. It will define the working conditions and any required licenses, certifications. And, of course, lastly, to establish a new standardized and equitable system, compensation classification system that will allow us for more effective and efficient pay processes that will provide for more meaningful progression between the steps, a system that will be in line compliant with the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Mass Pay Equity Act, a system that will be able to offer fair and competitive wages and also ensure that the compensation is aligned with the assigned duties a system that will allow us to retain and to attract and to retain talented qualified managers and staff these are individual contributors often with very specific areas of expertise with advanced degrees and this system would hopefully will also ensure that jobs that are performing the same level of responsibility the same complexity are defined and grouped together lastly our goal is to also have an implementation plan that will guide us as to how we can correct the discrepancies that will result from the present compensation system and the proposed compensation system so we're looking for an implementation plan which will not necessarily result in immediate compensation increase for our employees thank you ms lata for

▶ 56:39 Jeff McNaught: that uh overview um first we have counselor Grigoraitis thank you mr chairman and thank you

▶ 56:47 Jen Grigoraitis: ms lata for being here um and i apologize in advance i know you and i have talked that i i do hr in my day job so sorry um but i i honestly have to say i have mixed feelings about this order um partly because i i very much believe in the need to professionalize our workforce and i do believe that that includes competitive compensation but i'm a little i'm surprised at the timing of this both as the first order to come before us for free cash this year is about um salaries for city employees but also given where we are um as a nation and a state with funding i feel like looking at municipal salaries over the past six months to a year which i'm assuming would be what you would be pulling is not really an accurate reflection given furloughs given delays given the fact that the state budget process was delayed six months um so i'm i'm a little I'm a little wary of the timeline both in terms of the data that you would be pulling and then also if you could talk a little bit about how this consultant in the work of this consultant ties into the performance evaluation process but I know you've put in place because I feel like those are kind of those things need

▶ 58:08 Speaker 1: to work together thank you for the question thank you and very very much so um the timing this order was supposed to come in front of the city council earlier um last last year last calendar year Of course, the pandemic happened, so it has been delayed. This is part of the compensation and classification study. We are going to be looking to align the new classification system with performance management. And not only with that, but also with the goals of the administration, the values of the city, which is what I had addressed earlier. So we are looking to change it. It's an antiquated classification system. We have over 100 different salary tables. We have 60 job descriptions, each tied to a salary table. And we want to ensure there's a meaningful progression. As I said, this will have to be based on performance management and aligned with our goals of the administration.

▶ 59:32 Jen Grigoraitis: So your thinking is that, and this is something I read in the RFP, is that you would do this study and then kind of hold the results of it while you continue performance management. and then i mean i'm assuming part of what this is going to reveal for us is that we have many positions that are underpaid market rate um so with the i guess my part of my question is what is the timeline for trying to address the results of this study so as soon as the study is completed

▶ 1:00:02 Speaker 1: we're going to have a group of us which will include the mayor the deputy mayor the cfo and the hr director and then we're going to review what our priorities are and come up

▶ 1:00:24 Jen Grigoraitis: with a strategic plan of action is is that something you would be looking for additional outside help too i mean i just i know anecdotally strategic planning is usually something that so involves a consultant which is not to diminish the value of any of these asks i just it's helpful to kind of know what the broader plan is because we tend to just get one little slice of information sure we're not planning on getting additional um consultants in order to decide on our priorities

▶ 1:01:00 Speaker 5: no thank you i appreciate that information thank you council Grigoraitis counselor mcmaster

▶ 1:01:09 Shawn M. MacMaster: thank you mr chairman good evening uh thank you for being here my question my first question relates to page 11 of the rfp do you have that in front of you

▶ 1:01:40 Speaker 1: Ms. Lata? I apologize. I don't know if I have page 11 in front of me right now.

▶ 1:01:43 Shawn M. MacMaster: It's in reference to the deliverable section. Under the deliverable section of page 11, it talks about once a firm is retained to conduct the audit, that that audit would commence within four weeks. What I didn't see in there is any mention of an end date or anticipated end date. Now, I understand that this is not a contract. It's just an RFP. It's not a MOU or an MOA. And I do understand from the memo that from this RFP, there was a select group of individuals who are firms that responded. I think 12, I might have that number wrong. But without an end date, I'm just wondering how we can expect that a firm might have the capacity based on the timing of what the city is looking for. And if we were to have an actual end date in the RFP, might we have gotten more than than 12 responses um so i guess that's my i guess my question is is there a reason why we didn't include an anticipated end date in the rfp um you know there's there's no particular

▶ 1:02:58 Speaker 1: reason other than we left these days open since as i said we were planning on presenting this earlier last year and we did not include an end date um as to and i'm sorry can you just repeat the previous question i just um so under uh the deliverable

▶ 1:03:22 Shawn M. MacMaster: section of page 11 it gives a time frame for when the project will commence once the firm is retained which is four weeks but there's at least nothing in the deliverable section and i didn't see it anywhere else unless I missed it saying what the anticipated length of this study would be because I just think it's challenging for a firm to commit or to or seek to be retained for this service if it doesn't know how long we'll be potentially under under contract for and did we you know do ourselves a disservice by not putting that out there if maybe the the time frame is less than what it might otherwise be if it's not interested if it's excuse me if it's not listed you could have a prospective firm thinking you know is this project how in depth is this project is this project something that might be you know a year uh and if so um you know they may not be in the business of getting involved in a contract that is lengthy if they're looking to turn around um you know audits like this uh in a more rapid fashion

▶ 1:04:38 Speaker 1: yeah okay so just to clarify so we haven't sent these rfp out obviously we haven't reached out to the consultants we have identified several consultants that came recommended from other communities who have uh undergone through this process but uh so we haven't defined the end date it's something that we can um certainly discuss and we should discuss as a group but we have not sent anything out to consultants

▶ 1:05:14 Shawn M. MacMaster: my apologies i might have misread it so the when when you say identified there are potential firms that have been identified and those are the ones that are listed in the something that i read listed i believe 12. i could have that wrong oh okay i know i understand where that's coming from

▶ 1:05:38 Speaker 1: you're referring to a few pages before that they will survey 12 comparable communities

▶ 1:05:46 Shawn M. MacMaster: it wasn't that but i do we can move on i do have a question i do have a question about the 12 comparable communities um is that that's on that's on page two under compensation and i'm wondering how will those 12 communities be identified uh the one part of the rfp which just gave me some pause was the language saying it would be done in conjunction with the city and when you're doing i think an audit like this for scientific you know reliability purposes you want to leave it to leave the methodology to uh the firm that is designing this so i'm wondering what does in conjunction mean and with 12 communities that's just three percent of the communities in massachusetts so were there communities in mind that we had where did those particular communities come from and what is the basis for making that that type of suggestion to uh to an independent

▶ 1:06:45 Speaker 1: for yeah this is um again when we requested um proposals for other rf when we requested um rfps from other municipalities who have gone through the process this is something that was identified um the number of comparable communities and we will certainly um as you said we want to make sure that the process that we're using is um very sound so we're living into the consultant to identify these communities thank you yeah the first thing that came to my mind was this

▶ 1:07:20 Shawn M. MacMaster: comparison that we seem to do you know at the municipal level of uh looking um at uh other communities in the middlesex league which although may be similar in size it's really not the way to go about doing um you know any type of an assessment so i would i would just hope that we would uh leave that to the uh the firm uh to decide uh if and when um this passes and and we do end up retaining someone thank you for all your work on this evening thank you thank you

▶ 1:08:06 Robb Stewart: councillor mcmaster councillor stewart thank you mr chair thank you ms lata for coming here tonight and explaining what this request is for. Can you – I just need a little help understanding this. So you're not necessarily changing a technology. You're just changing more the nomenclature. Is that accurate?

▶ 1:08:30 Speaker 1: Yes, we're not changing the technology. We are changing the way that physicians can be classified.

▶ 1:08:42 Robb Stewart: and compensated. Okay, and can you give me an example of these discrepancies that you're

▶ 1:08:51 Speaker 1: speaking to? Well, the discrepancies will be identified at the end of the process, but for example, in the past, decisions related to upgrades in salaries have been made not necessarily based on defined criteria for every position they have been made in on individual basis so at the end once we receive that you know the the end result of the study we're looking to see what the discrepancies between our car systems system are and the new

▶ 1:09:36 Robb Stewart: um more equitable and standardized system so then what i'm hearing that is you are assuming

▶ 1:09:45 Speaker 1: there's discrepancies but you don't actually have identified discrepancies we have sure we have um let me give you an example we have positions uh two tiers of non-union positions these tiers were defined in 2011, Tier 1 and Tier 2 positions. Tier 1 positions are employees who were hired by 2011. The steps, the increase between the steps for Tier 1 positions are 3.5%. The increase between the steps for Tier 2 positions are 1.25%. So there's somewhat of an internal inequity between the two tiers. So this is a discrepancy that will be identified. We're looking, as part of the RFP, we're looking to, of this study, we're looking to have physicians who perform the same type of job, with the same complexity, with the same knowledge, with the same required skills, classified under one group, so we don't have a position that performs certain set of responsibilities if this person was hired prior to 2011, be on a different salary schedule, and the same person hired after 2011, you have a different salary schedule. So these are discrepancies that will come up. Thank you for clarifying that. And

▶ 1:11:30 Robb Stewart: let me understand what the end objective of having this new classification system. Is it employee retention? Is it employee satisfaction? I'm trying to understand what's motivating this need because we've had a system in place you have you let us know that you haven't done a review in 32 years uh what's what is broken that is that is evident that that would uh cause a betterment of the system outside of we're paying ourselves better because that's all i'm hearing

▶ 1:12:07 Speaker 1: right now it's not right it's not uh this is so much more more than just what we're paying the is how positions are classified during the years, non-union positions, let's say, especially over the past three years, job descriptions have changed, responsibilities have been added, And these job descriptions have not been reviewed to see how it fits the big picture and whether it is aligned with the goals of the city. So we are looking, yes, we are looking to be able to be competitive and fair in our wages. but in addition to that ensure that our job descriptions actually reflect what the responsibilities that the employee is performing and that's something that has not necessarily been done on a comprehensive level standardized where take for example department heads would have the same type of qualifications standard qualifications and responsibilities every department had positions position so overall we're looking to modernize our pay system to be more competitive but also to include this is changing the changes have happened throughout the years and how it fits in the big picture with the city's goals and values.

▶ 1:13:55 Robb Stewart: Okay, thank you, Ms. Lata. I appreciate the clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

▶ 1:14:01 Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilor Stewart. Councilor Migliorelli.

▶ 1:14:06 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you, Chairman McNaught. Thank you, Ms. Lata for being here. I would say that I in concept agree with a compensation study. I do believe that our city hall employees should be compensated adequately and should have there should be a clear path for promotion. But I do have some some questions for you. One that just came up while you were answering one of the other counselors questions. So in 2011, you developed this tier one. So I guess it's been 10 years that the city has been operating under two different tiered strategies for, that seems like an awful long time. I know this is not directed to you, but it's an awful long time to have a discrepancy. and see I think then also then going back to the RFP itself my question is are you so you haven't issued the RFP yet and what is your deadline for receiving proposals so we haven't

▶ 1:15:14 Speaker 1: sent the proposals out so we'll have to determine exactly what our deadline will be as soon as and I again that's something that we have I don't think that I have in front of me but we are looking to start the project immediately within four weeks of awarding the contract okay so you

▶ 1:15:42 Leila Migliorelli: have to you're issuing RFP it will get issued you then have a deadline when it will stay open and And then at that point, then the consultant will get started. So you are you feel you still feel pretty confident that this whole process will take place by the end of FY21 or early FY22? That's our goal. Yes. OK. OK. Some of my other questions were answered. I guess I share Councilor Grigoraitis concerns about the timing of this. So this is probably less to do with with you right now. But given that this is one of our first free cash requests of the year, we are midway through an unprecedented year in the middle of a pandemic. There's been references to having concerns about making sure that we meet the needs of the pandemic going forward and to have a request in front of us to look at a compensation study. While there's so many other people who are losing their jobs and, you know, facing hardships, it just seems a little bit out of step. mean that all being said i i do think in in concept we should be compensating um city hall staff appropriately but just the timing of this request um this year of all years is is a little bit um difficult uh to sort of ram it around so that's it for now thank you thank you thank you

▶ 1:17:12 Jeff McNaught: councilman really up next we have councillor Jamaleddine thank you chairman and thank you

▶ 1:17:17 Maya Jamaleddine: Ms. Lara for being with us today and for being so patient and answering all our questions. I wanted to ask, I have a few questions. So we don't have any, of course, we don't have any application, but you said that there is some talks about different consultants and from other from you know other individuals do we know or do we have any ideas about the fees is it same fees for all of them is it set fee we have an

▶ 1:18:06 Speaker 1: idea of what other municipalities have paid of course the the cost is tied to the number of job descriptions that they're reviewing into the other deliverables so we have based on what we have seen um the cfo determined about fifty thousand dollars now it could be more uh we don't have a set fee of what these consultants would charge okay

▶ 1:18:39 Maya Jamaleddine: So, for instance, if we approve tonight, or I'm just talking in case, the order of $50,000, and then the consultant comes in, we hire them, and it was $70,000, you're going to come back and ask for more?

▶ 1:18:58 Speaker 1: Well, we are going to let them know that this is what we're looking for. And based on what we're seeing that other municipalities have paid, we think that we are fairly close. Yes, of course, I can't tell you with certainty, but that's where we're fairly close. Okay. And so this order consists of hiring consultant to reassess our existing positions and city hall, right? Correct.

▶ 1:19:34 Maya Jamaleddine: Correct. So what about the positions that we've been, it's been put on hold and it's still not approved because of budgeting, because of our budget does not allow us to create these positions such as social workers that our community is in dire need of this position how can we include this

▶ 1:20:08 Speaker 1: in this um assessment so the position that we have we have 65 positions uh current positions and I apologize I don't have the actually let me see I don't have their positions so we do have social worker as part of the non-union positions that we're going to be looking to evaluate so would you be able to send us I'm sorry I

▶ 1:20:40 Maya Jamaleddine: didn't see the list of these positions and the document that you sent but would you be able to send us a list of all the positions that's gonna be evaluated yes I can do that thank you and the other one is you mentioned that the second phase after the consultant report would be released you will be meeting with the bodies of the city hall and administration and discuss the next phase can you elaborate a little bit about what is it what's the ninth title of uh can i elaborate i'm sorry i couldn't hear you

▶ 1:21:24 Maya Jamaleddine: i'm i'm sorry i said can you elaborate of what is it that you envision the next phase gonna be

▶ 1:21:36 Speaker 1: so the next phase is once we receive the implementation plan and once we look at the positions that will ask the consultant to prioritize them based on the need for change whether it's the job description or the compensation then we're going to have to get together with the mayor with the deputy mayor with the CFO and review these positions and ensure that they are aligned with the goals of the administration so there are some positions that will be a priority and that's a discussion that will have to take place okay so and that would come

▶ 1:22:20 Maya Jamaleddine: back to us to decide on the increase of course of if there is any changes and

▶ 1:22:31 Speaker 1: and salaries. Correct.

▶ 1:22:38 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. Thank you. I'm done with my questions. Thank you so much.

▶ 1:22:43 Speaker 3: Thank you.

▶ 1:22:44 Jeff McNaught: Thank you, Councillor Jamaleddine. Councillor Garipay.

▶ 1:22:48 Mark Garipay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Lata, for being here. I have a question. You mentioned there were 65 non-union positions.

▶ 1:23:00 Speaker 3: Yes.

▶ 1:23:03 Mark Garipay: If, you know, I'm not debating whether we're for it or against it, but if we're spending the money for this study, are we including the position of mayor in this study?

▶ 1:23:19 Speaker 5: Ms. Lodzina, you're on mute.

▶ 1:23:21 Speaker 3: No, we're not including the position of a mayor.

▶ 1:23:24 Speaker 1: We are focusing on non-union positions, non-elected positions. As I said, non-union positions. historically um if there's any type of uh job responsibilities change work conditions change requests for salaries these non-union roles they don't they don't have the like the union position they don't have the representatives of the attorneys to uh to advocate on their behalf so throughout the years these non-union positions have been on their own so we're trying to achieve more equitable and fair classification for them but we have not included elected officials we're specifically focusing on the non-union staff okay

▶ 1:24:21 Mark Garipay: i would just assume that if we're if this gets approved and we're spending the sum of money for a comprehensive study. The position of mayor and on a lesser degree, even maybe councilor or back then alderman, that has always been a topic in our community that it's gotten very . I personally think the position is under-compensated, but uh that's just my opinion but um i also believe that um you i mean you just said that the last survey we did was in 1988 or 89 so it's not like we've invested in these surveys and we've always had um discussions about the mayor's salary with no real data so if we're spending the amount of money for a compensation survey um i think you know for the a little potentially additional costs that this may may be to include these positions we should include it at this time if we're looking to attract the the best and the brightest to not only work for our community but run for the ceo office we need to really take a step back and see if it's compensated appropriately um so i really think that that should should be included in this study um you know I mean, actually, I'd like to make a motion now to amend the order 2020-43 to have this study include all compensated employees and compensated elected officials just to include this. i mean if we're spending the money i think we really should should take a um take a hard look at the the pay and what everyone needs to remember it's just a study the last one we did this 30 years ago there's no action moving forward i think in in our charter it also states that there's certain parameters in order to change the position but i think it's good to see what the position should be paid appropriately and see what uh see what the study would show so i would like to uh

▶ 1:26:46 Speaker 5: present that as a motion mr chairman can you can you just clarify that motion i would like

▶ 1:26:49 Mark Garipay: i would like to make a motion to amend order 2020-43 to have the study include all compensated city employees and elected officials make it easy like that i think when you say compensated that's

▶ 1:27:08 Jeff McNaught: That's where I'm unclear.

▶ 1:27:12 Speaker 3: I'm sorry. I'll just go off compensated.

▶ 1:27:19 Speaker 5: Exempt?

▶ 1:27:21 Mark Garipay: The 65 non-union positions that were identified by Ms. Latta that she was talking about.

▶ 1:27:36 Jeff McNaught: I see Councilor Thomas raising his hand. Is that a second or a request to speak?

▶ 1:27:42 Cory Thomas: I request to speak through the Chair. I will, I will 2nd, comes with motion. It makes sense to me that if we're spending money to bring in the consulting firm to look at these positions, it makes sense to do it all at 1 time and include elected officials. So, that's the 2nd, for me for council, Gary's amendment.

▶ 1:28:12 Jeff McNaught: Number 2021 dash 43, could you hear me that whole time? No. Okay. You can hear me now.

▶ 1:28:20 Jeff McNaught: We have a motion by Councillor Garipay to amend order 2021-43 to include elected officials along with the 65 positions that are named in the order. The motion is seconded by Councillor Thomas. on discussion i see hands raised from council Migliorelli we'll go with you first and council thomas saving uh stewart i have you next thank you mr chairman um i just have a question about

▶ 1:28:51 Leila Migliorelli: whether we're allowed to amend the body of the rfp i i believe that what's in front of us is appropriating free cash in the amount in a certain amount whether i i don't know that we can we have the authority to amend the rfp can can you answer that question chairman uh i actually cannot um

▶ 1:29:15 Jeff McNaught: i i don't know the answer to that question council mcmaster thank you mr chairman i think if i

▶ 1:29:27 Shawn M. MacMaster: understand council the gary pay's motion it's not to amend the nature of the rfp but the the order and the the nature for which funds would be allocated so it would i i think if i understand what he's asking is that um the order would say an appropriation from free cash account zero one dash three two four zero zero one in the amount of fifty thousand dollars to hr professional services account zero one one five two two dash five two nine zero zero to fund a compensation and classification uh study of however however the counselor wants to put it compensated uh Salaries and that have elected officials or something of that. So, I think what he's saying is he's looking to. Um, amended the order to allow an allocation above and beyond the, the nature of the RFP. I didn't hear a console that he was looking to. You know, change the any of the, I guess details of the, um, the, the proposal looking to, you know, the concerns i raised about three percent of communities in um you know 12 communities identified being three percent of all communities in middlesex county is a very small sample size i think that would be um beyond uh the purview of the council to me i think this seems within um our ability to do but um council captain my apologies if uh if i'm misinterpreting what it it is that you're requesting through your motion. Correct, I'm not looking to change the RFP.

▶ 1:31:13 Leila Migliorelli: Chairman McNaught, if I still have the floor here, but if the order says to fund a compensation classification study, period, I just don't know if we're allowed to then specify. I could see that if it said to, you know, the type of employees that the study is for, I'm not clear legally whether we have the ability add on that addendum to to include ourselves in that mix but i'll just leave it there thank you

▶ 1:31:41 Jeff McNaught: thank you council Migliorelli um i'm in the midst of uh sending the city solicitor and out uh asking this question um but in the meantime um i'd like to go back to counselor eccles who was in queue i have counselor stewart next counselor echoes is sorry before you and counselor your itis uh vice chair eccles i got it i got it right for the first time

▶ 1:32:08 Jack Eccles: it's your floor got mr chairman since since we're on discussion for the for the motion i'll i'll defer back um because i believe counselor stewart has discussed has discussion on the motion i had um questions about the compensation study in general so i'll thank you counselor

▶ 1:32:26 Robb Stewart: echoes counselor stewart thank you mr chair uh regarding um the the motion to amend while i respect uh counselor Garipay's intentions and i think they are um true to uh i think they're um a good position to take i don't think it's appropriate in that you're you're mixing apples with oranges and what i mean by that is um the study uh that ms lata is presenting is really um not only the the compensation but the the level of achievement the different titles the progression of those titles and that has nothing to do with elected officials you know elected official has a role and responsibility that's well defined um i think that if there's There's gonna be an examination of a compensation system for all of our elected officials. That needs to be a separate and distinct study. I don't believe it belongs in here and I would not support that motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

▶ 1:33:35 Jeff McNaught: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Next on, I believe on the motion, we have Councillor Grigoraitis.

▶ 1:33:40 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just, I appreciate Councillor Garipay additions and also those of Councillor McMaster's. I also agree with Councillor Migliorelli that I fear we're getting a little bit beyond the scope of what we can do with this order. And honestly, I'm still not totally sure that if the committee feels comfortable moving forward with this order at all. So I would actually, if there was a willingness on Councilor Garipay part to rescind his motion, I would make a motion to hold this order, given that there clearly seems to be more information that this body wants from Ms. Bata.

▶ 1:34:17 Speaker 1: Thank you.

▶ 1:34:20 Maya Jamaleddine: If I may second, Councilor Gergaray, I will second her motion.

▶ 1:34:27 Jeff McNaught: Well, we need to go back to Councilor Garipay first and see if you would like to first remove your motion. If not, we need to vote on it before that motion, any other motion related to this can be made.

▶ 1:34:44 Mark Garipay: I'll remove the motion and 2nd, um, 2nd, uh. That's a very good right? This is motion to hold it in committee.

▶ 1:34:55 Jeff McNaught: Okay, can we actually get an official motion at this point? Council Grigoraitis?

▶ 1:35:02 Shawn M. MacMaster: It was a suggestion before point of information. Mr. chair. Council of Thomas doesn't need to remove his 2nd. That's correct. Yes.

▶ 1:35:09 Jeff McNaught: Thank you. Council McMaster. Council Thomas your turn.

▶ 1:35:14 Cory Thomas: Chairman McNaught, I will remove my second for Councilor Garipay amendment.

▶ 1:35:20 Speaker 5: Thank you. Councilor Grigoraitis, do you have a second?

▶ 1:35:23 Jen Grigoraitis: Yes. Thank you. I motion to hold this order in committee.

▶ 1:35:28 Speaker 4: Second.

▶ 1:35:30 Jeff McNaught: Okay. Now we have a motion to hold Order 2021-43 in committee, seconded by Councilor Thomas. Is there any discussion? Councilor Stewart.

▶ 1:35:46 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chair. From the outset, I was not planning on supporting this at all at this time. I think it's a good idea to do this study, but to echo Councilor Grigoraitis comments at the outset, I think the timing of this, the relative priorities of what we need to be thinking about as a city and what we should be supporting i don't see this falling above the line at this point i think we should be more concerned about uh how we're going to be uh handling uh the situation with the pandemic uh how we're going to be there's a lot of issues um that have surfaced that are related on the hr front but not necessarily compensation wise that i think we also need to address so um respectfully miss lata i think this is a great idea to look at uh comprehensively i just don't think this is the time right now uh and so i will be supporting to hold this in committee for the time being thank you mr chair thank you councillor stewart and um

▶ 1:37:05 Jeff McNaught: I believe I have everyone, but I don't know if Vice Chair Eccles had any questions before we moved on?

▶ 1:37:16 Jack Eccles: MR. I think most of them will be answerable when it comes back before us.

▶ 1:37:22 Jeff McNaught: MR. Okay. So what I can tell you in very, very short verbiage is the ultimate authority for the positions that go into the RFP belongs to the administration. so we can't change it. So that being said, is there any other discussion before we move to a vote on the motion to hold this in committee? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, can you please call

▶ 1:37:54 Speaker 1: the roll? Chair McNaught? Yes. Vice Chair Eccles? Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi? Yes. Councilor

▶ 1:38:04 Speaker 1: master yes council agarapay yes council of Grigoraitis yes council of Migliorelli yes councillor stewart yes councillor thomas yes councillor maladin yes president sanella

▶ 1:38:28 Jeff McNaught: yes 11 yes unanimous motion passes thank you miss lata for your time um i know it's been rather long evening. We appreciate your efforts every day and tonight. Thank you.

▶ 1:38:42 Jeff McNaught: Moving on to the next and final order, we have Order 2021-52, an appropriation from Free Cash, account number 01-324-001, and the amount of $93,257 to various accounts is set forth herein. and I'm just going to read what here in means and I'll read the account numbers