ORDER-2024-22 : Requesting that the City Council designate the Melrose Public School positions of cafeteria worker, education stations site coordinator, education stations assistant site coordinator, educations stations instructor, education stations teams lead, crossing guard, and athletic trainer as Special Municipal Employees as that term is defined in M.G.L Chapter 268A. These designations shall be rescinded effective June 30, 2025 absent an additional vote by City Council authorizing the further extension of the special municipal employee designation to these positions.

Transcript (~17 min @ 1:15:00)

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

▶ 1:14:32 Ryan Williams: The orders are order 2024 dash 21, requesting that the city council designate election poll workers as special municipal employees as that term is defined in Massachusetts General Law Chapter 2268, a order 2024 dash 20, requesting that the city council designate the Council on Aging positions of Transportation driver as a special municipal employee, as that term is defined in Massachusetts General Law, chapter 2 68 A and order 2024 dash 22, requesting that the city council designate the Melrose Public School positions of cafeteria worker education stations, site coordinator, education stations, assistant site coordinator, education stations, instructor education stations, team lead, crossing guard, and athletic trainer as special municipal employees, as that term is defined in Massachusetts General Law Chapter 2 68 A. So at this time, I would entertain a motion to conjoin orders 2024 dash 21, 20 24 dash 20, and 2024 dash 22. I'd like to make a motion of what you just said. Fantastic. Second, I have a motion as to conjoin the orders, uh, made by Vice Chair Nu seconded by Vice Chair, I'm sorry, seconded by Counselor Van Dever. Um, is this roll call or do we just roll call? Okay. And, um, for the actual vote? Yeah, yeah, please, please call the roll for the conjoining of orders. No, that could be just, that's just a voice vote. Oh, okay. That's a voice vote. Yeah. Well, so I just asked. Okay. So all in favor a. Great, any opposed? Wonderful. That passes. These orders are now conjoined. We have members of the, uh, administration with us tonight. We have, uh, Ms. Lauren Grek, the, uh, the Mayor's chief of staff, and online we have, uh, city solicitor Shannon Phillips. And I would like to suspend rule by unanimous consent 37 B so that they can discuss this with us. And I see no objections. So that rule is suspended. Uh, please introduce the orders and tell us what we're voting on tonight.

▶ 1:16:48 Speaker 3: Um, I will just give just a brief, um, opening remarks that the, um, orders before you are really going to help the city fill. What's, what's traditionally been, um, vacant positions. Um, they're not only hard to fill, but we would have interested applicants who can't fill these positions because they hold one of the other ones on the agenda. So, uh, an election worker can't currently be a crossing guard. Um, so it will help, we think, the city to fill these, um, much needed positions, um, by making these positions designated as special municipal employees.

▶ 1:17:27 Ryan Williams: Thank you. Any questions from council

▶ 1:17:31 Devin Romanul: councilor, vice Chair, Romanul? Uh, I'm just curious, are there other, uh, municipalities that do it this way or are we, are we late to the party? Are we earlier to the party? Is there a party

▶ 1:17:41 Speaker 3: I'll defer to Solicitor Phillips,

▶ 1:17:46 Speaker 3: did you hear the question?

▶ 1:17:48 Speaker 10: I, I apologize. Are you able to repeat the question? It was a little, uh, muddled on my end.

▶ 1:17:52 Devin Romanul: Oh, yeah. Sorry. I'll, I will annunciate into the microphone. I was just curious, are there other municipalities that are doing this, um, uh, uh, making a similar change?

▶ 1:18:03 Speaker 10: Uh, it, so it's up to, it's up to the individual city council or Board of Selectmen in every city or town to designate certain positions that they deem appropriate to designate special municipal employees. So, um, I don't, I don't know that there's like a big push right now, or that there's a push to designate these positions that the city has now chosen. I just know that, um, over this past year, my understanding is it's come up that these positions have either been hard to fill, um, especially election worker, for example, um, and that there's an interest in, in filling these positions. And that an, um, a way to do this would be to allow the special municipal employee status so that, um, it would not, uh, restrict those that might currently work for the city, um, from holding one of these positions.

▶ 1:18:46 Speaker 4: Great. Thank you very much.

▶ 1:18:53 Ryan Williams: Any other voting members? No. Okay. Councilor gpe.

▶ 1:18:58 Speaker 2: Thank you. Um, quick, uh, quick question.

▶ 1:19:00 Mark Garipay: These are all, uh, part-time, part-time employees, correct?

▶ 1:19:06 Speaker 3: Yeah. Yes.

▶ 1:19:08 Mark Garipay: So right now, if, if, um, are they benefit eligible Healthcare,

▶ 1:19:16 Speaker 3: Given the number of hours that they would be expected to, to work, they would not be eligible for bene benefits. So,

▶ 1:19:22 Mark Garipay: So just by designating special employees, and if someone has two separate jobs, will they become benefit eligible? Um, if it's two part-time

▶ 1:19:36 Speaker 2: jobs, is that factored into Yeah, When they, when they decided this?

▶ 1:19:42 Speaker 3: Um, well, I know that, um, solicitor Phillips did, um, check with human resources. I think that that's more of a question for human resources, but that each of these positions are really specific in terms of the number of hours that they would be expected to work. Um, so for example, um, for a lot of the education stations positions, the strategy, at least for Melrose, would be to fill those positions with paraprofessionals. And those folks are already receiving benefits. Um, for some of them, there may be a situation where it would be clearly outlined in their employment letter or their, you know, documents that they're signing, their manager or supervisor would need to monitor their hours. We do that right now here in city Hall with employees who work, you know, just under the threshold so that we're not triggering that benefits eligibility, um, thing with 'em. So, so just to, it's not a yes or no question, it's a, depends on the position answer. So just,

▶ 1:20:39 Speaker 2: Just to clarify, if, if it's too non benefit

▶ 1:20:43 Mark Garipay: eligible positions that an individual, an individual will now hold, are they, would they be benefit eligible if they were, if they're non-eligible? 'cause they're gonna be over the 20 hours? Or are they considered separate? Mm-Hmm.

▶ 1:21:00 Speaker 10: Lauren, do you mind if I interject here?

▶ 1:21:03 Speaker 3: Yep. Nope, go ahead. I, I think there's a number

▶ 1:21:04 Speaker 10: of things that you have to consider. Um, councilor Repe, it's not just the fact that you hold two positions that might add up to 20 hours in a given week. They also have to be regularly employed by the city of Melrose. So, for example, the position of election worker that I think is one of the positions tonight, uh, that's asked to be designated as special, that's a temporary position. Um, so that, that would not count as far as the 20 hours a week. You'd have to really look at it in order for the position to be benefit eligible. Uh, or the two combined, it would have to be working 20 hours a week or more. Um, and it would have to be for over six months, regularly working for the city of Melrose. So, um, that could, like Lauren said, I think, I think, um, the education stations positions, for example, is if those are filled by paraprofessionals, those people are already benefit eligible. But obviously those would both be regularly occurring jobs, but election worker wouldn't qualify for that. Um, and my understanding from just speaking with schools is the athletic trainer. I think if that ends up being filled by one person, that might be a benefit eligible position since I think it would add up to 20 hours. But if it's multiple people, it might not be. And it all depends whether they hold a separate, um, regular position with the city or schools and the two combined. You are correct. If they're, if they're two regular jobs for the city or schools and they add up to more than 20 hours a week, um, then they would become benefit eligible. So that's something the city would have to keep track of.

▶ 1:22:28 Mark Garipay: Okay. Uh, yeah, I'm not necessarily, uh, opposed to this. I understand what they're, what they're trying to do. Um, but you know, we also are extremely gonna be tight this year. So I just wanted a little clarification on that. Thank you.

▶ 1:22:44 Speaker 4: Councilor Aldine.

▶ 1:22:46 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, uh, just to follow up on, uh, councilor Ante's question. My understanding in this situation, if it was a position that is, uh, posted as per diem, it can exceed and, but still does not qualify for these benefit. Is that correct?

▶ 1:23:11 Speaker 10: I, I am sorry. I I missed just the first part of the question. If it's a position that

▶ 1:23:18 Maya Jamaleddine: Is per DM per, uh, you know, it depends on how many hours and it would vary from one week to another or for, from, you know, uh, pay period to another, um, it would be class classified as third position is does this apply to these positions or no. Or are these fixed hours?

▶ 1:23:45 Speaker 10: I think I, I think I would have to know more about the, the specifics of that and look at the individual position. Um, I I did you say per diem position? Mm-Hmm. I think the general analysis, like I said, it's gonna be an intersection between the Affordable Care Act, the 32 B, which is the retirement, and also the GIC, uh, whether they're eligible for pension. Um, so it's gonna be an analysis under all three of those, which have different factors to consider as to whether the person becomes a regular employee, um, that's gonna meet that threshold that entitles them to benefits. Mm-Hmm. So again, it would have to be an analysis, um, done by the Human Resources department and something that the schools and the city would have to keep close track of in order to keep those individuals. Um, if that's, if that's the wish or the, the concern, um, in order to keep them in a category that they're, um, do not become then benefit eligible.

▶ 1:24:41 Maya Jamaleddine: Yeah. Um, the question is how can we ensure that these hours are closely monitored so we don't fall into exceeding this, um, budget. Um, you know, because I I'm sure we are very short on staff.

▶ 1:24:56 Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, we, I mean the, the, the good news is the city of Melrose is part-time positions are not new to us and to department heads and to supervisors who sign off on a weekly time sheet. So I think that the, you know, process is already in place. Um, I know I do it in the mayor's office, right. For the part-time staff that we have. So, um, I would think it's just like any other part-time position, but um, with the extra, you know, sort of lens to make sure that we're, um, you know, not triggering those, those benefits. Um, but you know, at least as far as in city hall, you know, we have time sheets that people, you know, fill out and require like, you know, a double signature. So,

▶ 1:25:37 Maya Jamaleddine: And who will be monitoring these

▶ 1:25:40 Speaker 3: Hours? I would imagine the department head or the supervisor. Okay. Within their department.

▶ 1:25:48 Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.

▶ 1:25:53 Speaker 4: Uh, oh, no. Um, counselor Vandiver,

▶ 1:25:55 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, uh, to piggyback on that one, um, because they will have sort of two departments potentially and two managers. So, uh, we may not know the answer, but it does seem like perhaps they would need to designate a primary manager as their manager who has them for the most hours. Or, you know, somebody who is the, making sure they get the hours from the other manager. Yeah. I imagine that our, our HR staff could figure, figure that out. We could make sure that, that, that that happens.

▶ 1:26:25 Speaker 4: Councilor? Yeah.

▶ 1:26:26 Mark Garipay: Just, uh, one other quick question regarding the, the most of these jobs are fall under the school department, which we don't have any, uh, purview. This the real city side. So how, how would that be monitored? I, I mean, we could sit there and say we're gonna monitor it, but it's really not. Yeah. I guess then, So yeah. So is there anything that the council can do to ensure that, that it is monitored? I know it is separation, but they do require our approval for these positions.

▶ 1:26:56 Speaker 2: And I don't know if you know that answer tonight or

▶ 1:27:01 Speaker 3: A approval of the hours. I dunno who I should. Yeah, I know. I think we're both trying to, sorry.

▶ 1:27:05 Speaker 2: I guess I was, uh, Shannon.

▶ 1:27:10 Speaker 10: Yeah, I, I'm I, council garbe, I'm, I'm not sure that I can answer that. I, the extent that I know about it is the school committee voted and I, my understanding is they're planning to do their own review on an annual basis of these positions to see if the status is still necessary. Um, and I also understand that I think the plan would be for the superintendent and or, uh, Ken Kelly to keep track of, um, the number of hours worked, uh, relative to the benefit eligibility. But again, I defer to them to, to answer those questions directly.

▶ 1:27:38 Speaker 2: And, and just one other question. Um, 'cause they, they keep 'em coming up now.

▶ 1:27:45 Mark Garipay: Um, it's annually the school department will, will review it and decide if it's necessary. Do we, do they have to come in front of the city council every year? Is this just, is this just a year change or is it once we do it, it's all these positions, um, are special employees forever until it's city

▶ 1:28:06 Speaker 10: Council. City council can revoke the des revoke the designation by vote at any time.

▶ 1:28:11 Speaker 2: Can we, can we make, can we amend it to say annually they have to come back to us, uh, for a vote? Can we amend this order? You could.

▶ 1:28:20 Speaker 10: I don't see any reason you couldn't put a a, a sunset provision on there, um, on the vote approval. Otherwise you could, you could vote on it. Um, as is, and as I mentioned, someone could put an order in and at any time, um, the City Council's acceptance could be revoked with a vote.

▶ 1:28:36 Mark Garipay: Yeah. And like I said, I'm not saying I'm, I'm, I'm not supporting this. I just, I guess my, um, get a little nervous when we start continuing to add special positions and more and more get added, then, you know, we have to review 'em. Uh, 'cause it could be a financial cost on benefits to the, to the community. Mm-Hmm. Thank you.

▶ 1:28:59 Ryan Williams: Okay. Uh, I'd like to suspend by unanimous consent Rule 21 C so that I can speak and ask a couple questions on the order. Seeing no concerns. Um, so first of all, I wanted to, um, call out the excellent notes and documentation on these orders. One here says that we have five positions that are currently deemed perpetual special municipal employees, and they don't appear to have any review or sunset clause in the city of Melrose. And this is the BB estate trustee, the Melrose Liquor Licensing Commissioner, the Melrose High School Athletic Department Equipment Manager and Assistant Varsity Coach, planning Board members and historic District commissioners. Is that correct? So these people are already special municipal employees? That's Correct. Okay. Um, and my second question is that we have in here something that we haven't talked about yet, which is that this allows people who are in the property tax work off program to fulfill these positions. And I think this is very interesting. Um, and I would like to hear a little bit more about how people enter the property tax work off program. Um, you know, how much are they allowed to work off? How is their rate of pay determined? And, um, what are we envisioning in terms of having PTWO property tax work off participants, um, being, uh, engaged in some of these positions, in particular the school positions?

▶ 1:30:27 Speaker 3: Um, as far as the program, I mean, it's run through the Council on Aging. So if I would advise, you know, we could have an info order, we could have a presentation about how the program is run. Um, my understanding, it's up to, or it's a thousand dollars off of your annual property taxes that you work off, um, roughly, I believe 66 hours. Um, so whatever that rate of pay is. Um, and so yeah, I mean, but there, those folks are available to fill these positions because who wants, you know, who can work elections seasonally when they come up. So, um, but yeah, I would encourage you to, to ask more, have those info orders.

▶ 1:31:10 Ryan Williams: Do, do you happen to know how many people are enrolled in the I do not Car Tax Program? No.

▶ 1:31:17 Speaker 4: Um, okay. Yeah.

▶ 1:31:19 Ryan Williams: I, I appreciate that domain of it. Um, I am given very slight pause when it comes to the ED stations, right? The ed stations, um, positions. Some of them, not all of them. Uh, obviously these are Right, you know, supposed to be educational programs. Um, um, but I, you know, I support the order and I think it's a great way to save money for the city. Uh, rather to fill, not to save money, to fill. Um, some of these jobs, which I know have been really challenging to fill, have resulted in parents who can't get their kids into ed stations because there's not enough staff to cover the openings. We're always chronically short of crossing guards. Um, yeah. So, um, uh, with that, uh, I'll entertain a motion to recommend,

▶ 1:32:12 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, motion to recommend to the full to to the full council.

▶ 1:32:16 Ryan Williams: Second. Okay. I have a motion to recommend by Councilor Aldine. Seconded by Councilor Romanul. And this is a roll call. Vote yes.