Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Reclassification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middletown council revisits HR reclassification after contentious debate; motion to reconsider passes
Summary
Councilmembers split over a package of human resources reclassifications and associated appropriations, debating committee process, fiscal impacts, union status and internal pay disparities. After a motion to reconsider, the council approved the HR manager reclassification by a narrow majority.
A package of human‑resources job reclassifications and a related appropriation dominated the latter portion of the Oct. 7 Middletown Common Council meeting, producing extended debate about process, internal pay equity and the city’s classification study.
The sequence: earlier in the evening the council approved a recruitment and outreach specialist position (item 6c) and an entry‑level HR clerk (item 6b) but voted down a reclassification that would have upgraded the HR generalist to a manager (item 6d). After a recess and the presentation of additional staff‑provided information about internal pay relationships, Councilman Vinny Lofredo moved—and the council voted to—reconsider item 6d. The reconsideration passed 6–5; on reconsideration the reclassification also passed by the same margin.
Staff said the combination of approving the outreach specialist (which moved from grade 10 to 12) while leaving the generalist at grade 10 produced an internal discrepancy that created a bottleneck in the HR office. As General Counsel explained, the deputy‑director classification had been removed previously from the classification plan; absent a new reclassification the office would not have an incumbent whose job description authorizes the recruiting and processing tasks the department needs done.
Opponents—including several council members who serve on relevant committees—objected to the item’s repeated return to the council floor after committee votes, disputed whether MOUs and benefit piggybacking had been handled transparently, and asked for clearer fiscal estimates. Councilwoman Slapia and others emphasized committee review and raised concerns about optics: employees across the city who work “out of class” are watching whether reclassifications are handled equitably.
Fiscal detail and appropriation: Council amended an appropriation request tied to HR reclassifications to limit the FY24–25 impact to the fiscal cost of the single approved recruitment/outreach specialist ($7,280.80 for the current fiscal year) rather than the larger amount requested if all job changes had been adopted. Finance staff and councilors discussed estimated pension additions (an estimated $256,000 increase cited by council members) and the need for an actuarial review for later years.
Outcome and next steps: The council’s final votes allow the HR office to proceed with the revised classification structure and related appropriations as amended; staff committed to clarifying benefit and fiscal impacts with finance and general counsel, and to continue executing the Baker Tilly classification and compensation study that city staff said will provide broader recommendations for a long‑term fix.
