Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Staffing And Tax Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Executive committee forwards ordinance removing income tax secretary position to council
Summary
The executive committee considered ordinance 25‑19 to remove the income tax secretary title and transfer duties to the tax clerk; members discussed confidentiality, bonding, and job classifications and then voted to send the ordinance to the full council.
The Amherst Executive Committee voted May 19 to forward ordinance 25‑19 to the full City Council. The ordinance removes the title “income tax secretary,” transfers duties to the tax clerk and other positions defined in the Amherst codified ordinances, and updates related language including bonding requirements.
Councilmember Diminsky, who submitted the ordinance, said the changes reflect that the income tax office is “fully staffed and funded” and that duties previously tied to a secretary position have been transferred to the tax clerk, who is currently running the office. Diminsky said the measure “cleans up some of the language” and does not eliminate any currently staffed positions.
Councilmember Ramsey raised concerns about confidentiality protections and bonding. Ramsey asked that confidentiality responsibilities continue to extend beyond the treasurer to other income tax office positions; Diminsky said the ordinance as drafted applies confidentiality to positions defined in section 139 (the tax clerk, two tax assistants, part‑time and permanent, and the deputy treasurer). Ramsey also asked about a bonding requirement; Diminsky said the ordinance replaces references to the income tax secretary in section 17513 of the Amherst Codified Ordinances with the income tax office clerk so that the bonded requirement would apply to the tax clerk.
Councilmember Wnarski moved to send ordinance 25‑19 to the full council; Councilmember Wacholz seconded. The committee voted unanimously to forward the ordinance.
No formal amendments were adopted at the committee meeting; committee members asked for clarity on sections 6 and 7 and confirmed that the current staffing would not be reduced by the ordinance.
