Committee weighs $4,000 interim‑chief headhunt as union and contract issues complicate shared police services

Committee members discussed a $4,000 proposal to recruit an interim chief or administrator to stabilize police operations and lead a recruitment and merger study, but several members said collective‑bargaining and reciprocity issues must be resolved before moving forward.

Committee member Bart said the proposal Jim Baker circulated this morning would be most useful if it included explicit deliverables. "If I'm asking you to do this, I'd put it in the contract — that's one of the things you're going to produce," Bart said, urging a job description and clear timelines.

The matter stems from a multiyear conversation about shared chiefs, shared patrols and possible consolidation. "We've had conversations about shared chief services and shared patrol services for five years or more," Committee member Michael said, framing the discussion as one about long‑term regionalization rather than a quick fix.

Bob Stafford, who said Richmond used a similar approach in 2019, described a workaround used previously: hire an administrative specialist who designates a certified "officer in charge" to perform duties that require full police certification. "It worked very well," Stafford said, arguing that a non‑certified administrator plus a designated certified officer can bridge operational gaps.

Frank, the current interim chief, explained existing staffing and payroll realities, including the union context. He said Richmond currently funds four officer positions with one filled and that a recent hire will complete probation on June 13 or 14, which affects the town's ability to formally bargain with the union. "We're talking about one person right now — we have four funded, one filled and about to leave probationary status," Frank said.

Speakers emphasized that any arrangement would probably need reciprocal terms: if Hinesburg provides officers to Richmond, Richmond should provide coverage back, and hours should be tracked for a monthly net settlement. Members described the union's likely position that officers covering multiple towns or taking extra responsibilities would expect different pay rates or stipends.

"If those officers are taking on additional workload they're saying those officers should probably get a different pay scale," a committee member said, summarizing the union's stance on compensation for cross‑coverage.

Budget timing also complicates the decision. Participants said both towns' budgets assume a half‑time shared chief starting the next fiscal year in July; one member noted Richmond has budgeted a half‑time chief and an administrative position of roughly 20 hours to relieve patrol duties.

Given the uncertainties, the committee asked for a more formal proposal from Jim with a job description, deliverables and timelines, and proposed scheduling a preliminary meeting with the regional union representative on or after June 13 to discuss conceptual features (not bargaining). Josh, a staff member, agreed to look into scheduling that June 13 meeting and to review next steps before the current contract expires on June 30.

The committee closed the meeting by voice vote and agreed to follow up on the headhunting proposal and the reciprocal‑contract questions at the next session.