Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hiring And Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clifton Park residents challenge board on hiring and ethics appointments as outside candidate is advanced
Summary
Public commenters and several board members criticized recent appointments and a parks hiring decision, citing a CSEA contract that gives priority to internal candidates and warning of binding arbitration if the contract is not followed; the board approved an outside program events hire while some ethics appointments were tabled or contested.
The Clifton Park Town Board on March 18 moved forward with an outside hire for the parks program events coordinator while facing sustained public criticism that internal candidates were not given contractually required priority.
Residents at public privilege said the town’s CSEA collective bargaining agreement gives preference to internal candidates when multiple applicants are qualified. “If there are multiple qualified candidates, priority consideration goes to someone who is internal,” said a resident who reviewed the contract at the microphone. Another commenter urged the board to follow the contract or risk binding arbitration that could result in reinstatement, back pay and seniority adjustments.
Supervisor McBride told the board the town traditionally gives “very, very heavy consideration” to hiring from within, but acknowledged that hiring decisions must also reflect qualifications and civil-service rules. “We give more than preference — we give very, very heavy consideration and have shown that we have always… hired from within,” the supervisor said.
Several public speakers urged the board to interview internal applicants and to consult the town’s human-resources staff before finalizing appointments. Joanna Tristan said she had submitted a letter and supporting materials to the supervisor’s office and asked that the board make the vetting process transparent.
The dispute centered on two agenda items: the appointment of members to the town ethics advisory board and the authorization to hire a program events coordinator in parks and recreation. A number of speakers raised concerns that the ethics appointments would create an all-male panel and questioned whether female applicants had been considered; others called for full disclosure of applicants’ resumes and interview records.
Town legal counsel and residents warned the board that any decision inconsistent with the CSEA language could be subject to grievance and binding arbitration. One commenter described the arbitration process and possible remedies, including reversing a hire and awarding back pay, if the grievance were upheld.
The board ultimately authorized the hiring of the outside candidate for the program events coordinator position as presented in the resolution on the agenda. Other resolutions related to ethics-board appointments were moved, tabled or otherwise contested during the meeting; some were removed from the table for reconsideration. Several residents said they would like the board to solicit HR guidance and to provide more transparent candidate interviews going forward.
What happens next: the town’s supervisor’s office will finalize onboarding steps for the authorized hire; residents and some board members signaled they may pursue clarification, additional review or grievance procedures if contractual obligations are believed to have been breached.
