Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parental Leave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Villa Park trustees discuss 6-week parental leave proposal; no formal vote
Summary
Trustees reviewed a proposed parental leave policy that would provide six weeks of paid leave running concurrently with FMLA, discussed eligibility, retroactivity to Jan. 1, 2025, and potential requirements that employees remain employed for a year after taking leave. No ordinance or policy was adopted; staff will return with more detail.
Villa Park trustees discussed a draft parental leave policy and the board’s remaining questions during the Committee of the Whole meeting on June 9, 2025. Human Resources staff presented a proposal to begin with six weeks of paid parental leave, to run concurrently with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The proposal would pay 100% of regular pay for the paid period and would allow the six weeks to be taken consecutively or intermittently within six months of the birth.
The proposal was presented alongside a written statement read into the record from AFSCME union president Ken Pilar. Pilar’s statement said, in part, “Although he would love to see a 12 week policy, he is a realist and acknowledges that going from a no policy to a full week 12 week policy may not be feasible from a cost and staffing perspective.” Pilar also recommended a one‑year return requirement after using parental leave to limit the village’s liability for paid time‑off payouts.
Why it matters: trustees framed the discussion as both an employee‑benefits and a recruitment/retention issue. Human Resources said the village has a relatively small workforce (about 147 full‑time employees, 27 part‑time and 124 seasonal employees), only a handful of positions that can be fully performed remotely, and union contracts with varying unpaid leave provisions. Board members said those operational constraints affect how much paid leave the village can provide without interrupting services.
Key details and board questions - Proposed paid leave: six weeks at 100% regular pay, running concurrently with FMLA (which provides up to 12 weeks of job‑protected leave for eligible employees). (Human Resources staff) - Eligibility frequency: the draft would allow one case of parental leave every 36 months. (Human Resources staff) - Use window and notice: paid leave could be taken intermittently or consecutively within six months of birth; staff recommended a 30‑day minimum notice when possible. (Human Resources staff) - Retroactivity: staff proposed a retroactive eligibility date of Jan. 1, 2025; going back into 2024 was described as more difficult for accounting. (Human Resources staff) - Supplementing pay: birthing parents may be able to use short‑term disability and accrued time to extend income; other accrued paid leave (vacation, personal, floating holidays) can also be used after paid parental leave is exhausted. (Human Resources staff) - Remote work: staff reported roughly five employees who could work fully remote and about 15 who could work partially remote, limiting flexible coverage options. (Human Resources staff) - Union and unpaid leave differences: AFSCME provides up to six months unpaid leave in its contract; other unions and public safety agreements differ (one agreement cited as having no cap). (Human Resources staff)
Board discussion emphasized balancing employee retention with operational coverage. Trustee Cozier said he supported starting at six weeks but recommended a requirement that “the employee has to come back and work for the village for at least 1 year” or face prorated deductions; he also asked that the program be reviewed in one year. Trustee Kumar and others asked for department‑level analyses showing which positions could be held open and which roles would require temporary staffing or overtime. Trustee Contaros asked how many employees would be covered retroactively; Human Resources said three employees were known to have had children so far in 2025 but acknowledged it had not asked all staff to disclose births.
Outcome and next steps: the board discussed the proposal and several trustees voiced support for six weeks as a baseline, plus further study. No formal motion or vote to adopt a policy occurred during the meeting. Staff said they would provide additional information, including department‑level coverage implications, historical return rates after unpaid leave if available, and suggested contract language (including the one‑year employment condition discussed by trustees) for future consideration.
Ending: trustees moved on to the grocery tax discussion after roughly an hour of parental leave questions; staff will return with more detailed options and cost/coverage data for a future meeting.
