Like the doctor's credo of "do no harm," the BOS (Board of Selectman) should be very careful that it doesn't take steps that jeopardize the town's financial standing. Recently, we have experienced some good news on the financial front, but the good days won't last forever. Even in times when there is extra money, we should not be wasteful or overspend, especially on things that have long-term implications (i.e., increases in operating costs versus purchasing capital items.)

In November, the Finance Committee learned of a new policy that had been developed by the BOS (in executive session) which involved what we pay non-union staff. For years, the town side (versus the school side) of the budget has been squeezed because of increasing school enrollment. Town staff has had to make do with fewer employees and possibly smaller salary increases because of budget constraints.

The BOS has decided that this situation needs to be rectified immediately, so it has passed a policy that would grant employees raises in FY2009. Some of them would see raises as high as 25% - 30% in a single year, if the budgets go forward as planned. Again, this would only apply to non-union employees. The BOS estimates this change will cost us a net of about $450,000 next year, with no estimates of the future impact.

The basis for this idea and the salary data was developed in a compensation study ordered by the BOS which showed that some of our employees were paid less than the median salary for similar positions across a number of towns that were selected to be comparable to Acton. But the study had very deep flaws, including selecting some cities where comparable managers oversaw much larger departments, or not selecting communities that are closer to Acton and might have more similar wages. Even so, I believe the average pay Acton employees got was 97% of the median. Some might view this as a positive...that the town of Acton had managed to control wage costs better than in other towns. That's not how the BOS sees it.

More importantly, however, is the notion that a formula should determine the final salary of an employee. Non-union staff are not, and should not be, compensated in such a manner.

First, it eliminates the rationale for rewarding exceptional performance or service. In fact, that may be one reason why a job isn't unionized in the first place.

Second, there may be employees who, through their tenure, performance, or specific responsibilities, should not be compensated at the average wage of their peers. What if we hire someone who just doesn't progress or perform as well as expected? Or what if they exceed expections? Should that person's manager (or the Town Manager) have no say in their compensation?

But this gets worse, much worse. Because so far, the policy I have described is just a bad idea, not a potential cause of a fiscal crisis.

The BOS's policy also endorses the concept of paying our non-union staff 105% of the average median salary for that job function. Every employee with three or more years of service to the town would get a raise in the next fiscal year, bringing them up immediately to this calculated number. (Staff members that are above 105% would not see a reduction in their pay, however.)

Besides the impractical notion that we would need to survey all of these towns every year in the future to determine raises, and even if we get away from the fantasy that every non-union staff member is better than the average of all the staff in all the other towns in the survey, the reason this rises to "the worst mistake of the year" is because most of the town's staff is unionized. This same policy may have to be applied to the unionized staff with catastrophic fiscal consequences.

What do you think the unions will do in their next collective bargaining session when they also want to be paid 105% of what their peers in these neighboring towns get? Can you imagine how the town will defend itself in arbitration by saying that the union workers should be paid much less than their peers in Acton relative to other towns? Wouldn't that go against this new BOS policy?

(Or what if a different set of towns is compiled, showing that our wages are lower than we thought, compared to this new group? When would this end?)

When asked at the Finance Committee meeting (12/4/07) how this policy might affect union contracts, Temporary Town Manager John Murray had a response that simply missed the point. He said that our non-union staff receives fewer perks than our union staff. For example, the police have the Quinn Bill, which gives them more money for higher education. The firemen have a 2/5 shift and (said Selectmen Hunter) only work a total of 90 days a year. Union members also enjoy other benefits and some restrictions. So their situation is different from the non-union staff.

But Finance Committee member Bob Evans pointed out that police and fire employees in other towns also participate in similar programs, so the question is whether or not our police and fire are currently paid at 105% compared to these other towns, or not. And if not, why shouldn't we expect them to demand the same?

As usual, the BOS's heart is in the right place. Unfortunately, they seem to make many decisions these days using their hearts, not their heads. And wanting to support and reward town staff for their many years of fine service is an admirable goal. There is no question that there are staff members who need raises, and soon. But this must be approached in a way that is fair and won't bankrupt the town. And it must be done on a case by case basis, not as a blanket rule that covers all town staff. Even if the union staff were not an issue, this simply isn't the way to compensate employees in non-union positions. It is not going to save the town money in the long run. What will neighboring towns like Concord, Sudbury, and Littleton do if they start losing staff to Acton? And when you take the union issue into account, it could wreak havoc on our finances for years to come.

This policy needs to be reversed.

-------------------------------------------

COMMENTS? ADDITIONS? SUBTRACTIONS? Send your comments for publication or for information to comments@ActonForum.com. All submissions must be signed, but names may be withheld upon request. Submissions may be posted to this website, rejected, or returned for corrections or revisions.