Middletown council questions reclassification process as Baker Tilly review continues

MIDDLETOWN, Conn. Aug. 5, 2024 During a Questions to Directors workshop, members of the Middletown Common Council pressed city legal staff about how reclassification requests move from a labor-management committee to council consideration and what protections exist for incumbents while a broader classification study proceeds.

Attorney Smith, the citygeneral counsel, summarized the two reclassification tracks used by the unions and the labor-management committee and said council members must use contract criteria when voting on individual requests. "So you have, 2 labor management committee processes and, request before you tonight," Smith said, describing the OPSU and 466 procedures and the committeereview the council receives.

Why it matters: reclassifications can change pay and classification for city employees and, depending on the contract, may be subject to arbitration. Council members sought clarity on whether council decisions are appealable; Smith said it depends on the union contract. "In the 466 contract, the language says that it is, the decision of the council is final and not subject to appeal. In the OPSEU contract, there is an appeal mechanism," Smith said, noting appeals typically proceed through binding arbitration under AAA and that arbitration can be expensive.

Council members also pushed for the status of a Baker Tilly classification study the council funded with a $150,000 appropriation in April 2023. Smith said the study is still in progress: department head reviews are underway and the consultantwork will be reviewed with unions before coming back to council and committees for final action. "We're reaching a conclusion on that, and, then, they'll do the review with the unions to make sure that that's in alignment...and then it will be, in front of the council and the committees to, to finalize things," Smith said.

On process and fairness, Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell asked whether members of the labor-management panel should recuse themselves when an applicant is a direct report. Smith said such situations are not clearly prohibited as a legal conflict but acknowledged recusal could be a best practice: "That said, best practice would probably be if there is, you know, a direct report and you're reviewing the direct report, it might make sense to to step aside."

Council members asked whether the councilas the fiscal body should weigh financial impact. Smith said interim reclass reviews use a point-factor internal-equity system (the Maximus framework) and do not perform a current external market comparison; the Baker Tilly study is intended to provide the market-based review later. "It is not a market comparability system," Smith said of the current point-factor approach, noting Baker Tilly will help reset market relationships when the study is finalized.

Whathappens next: Council members were told positions under tonight's consideration will be part of ongoing review and that the council will receive additional details from Baker Tilly and staff as that work concludes. There were no formal votes on reclassifications during the workshop.

Speakers quoted or referenced (first instance): Attorney Smith (general counsel); Councilman Vincent J. Lofredo (council member who asked detailed procedural and fiscal questions); Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell (council member raising recusal and process consistency concerns); Chair (presiding officer who opened the workshop).

Context/clarifying details: the Baker Tilly review was authorized by a $150,000 appropriation on April 3, 2023; the labor-management process requires union-requested reclass petitions, committee review and then separate council consideration of each position; reclass requests cannot be considered two years in a row and a successful reclass cannot be considered again for five years.

Provenance: topicintro SEG 096, topfinish SEG 277.

Topics:[{"name":"labor_management","justification":"Central focus of multiple Q&A exchanges about reclassification procedures and appeals; article summarizes the committee and council roles.","scoring":{"topic_relevance":0.98,"depth_score":0.88,"opinionatedness":0.05,"controversy":0.30,"civic_salience":0.75,"impactfulness":0.60,"geo_relevance":1.00}}]

Authorities:[{"type":"other","name":"Baker Tilly classification study (appropriation $150,000)","citation":"approved 04/03/2023 appropriation","referenced_by":["SEG 262","SEG 276"]},{"type":"statute","name":"Municipal Employee Relations Act (MIRA)","citation":"MIRA","referenced_by":["SEG 200"]}]

Speakers:[{"name":"Chair","role_title":"Presiding officer","affiliation_type":"government","affiliation_name":"Common Council","first_reference":{"block_id_start":"SEG 001"}},{"name":"Councilman Nocera","role_title":"Council member","affiliation_type":"government","affiliation_name":"Common Council","first_reference":{"block_id_start":"SEG 072"}},{"name":"Councilman Vincent J. Lofredo","role_title":"Council member","affiliation_type":"government","affiliation_name":"Common Council","first_reference":{"block_id_start":"SEG 165"}},{"name":"Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell","role_title":"Council member","affiliation_type":"government","affiliation_name":"Common Council","first_reference":{"block_id_start":"SEG 305"}},{"name":"Attorney Smith","role_title":"General counsel/Attorney","affiliation_type":"government","affiliation_name":"City of Middletown","first_reference":{"block_id_start":"SEG 095"}}]

Actions:[]

Claims matrix:[{"speaker":"Councilman Vincent J. Lofredo","speaker_role":"Council member","claim":"These entities are exempted and thus have no standards by which to question the noise they're making; the ordinance would waive controls for specified riverfront entities.","claim_type":"assertion","target":"proposed ordinance exemptions","target_type":"policy","status":"unresolved_in_hearing","response":"Attorney Smith said lease provisions (nuisance and reputational clauses) provide enforcement tools and that the ordinance exemption does not leave the city without remedies.","response_speaker":"Attorney Smith","response_speaker_role":"General counsel","transcript_segments":[{"block_id_start":"SEG 749","block_id_end":"SEG 803","evidence_excerpt":"So my corrected understanding that, these particular entities that are mentioned in this patrode change to this ordinance will have no, standards by which to question or question the noise that they're making, because they're all been exempted during those periods of time","reason_code":"topicintro"},{"block_id_start":"SEG 872","block_id_end":"SEG 892","evidence_excerpt":"So 1 is there is a, a nuisance provision... 2 is there is a reputational clause in our standard leases","reason_code":"topicfinish"}],"notes":"Included here because it was raised as a direct concern in the noise ordinance discussion."}]

Clarifying_details:[{"category":"Baker Tilly appropriation","detail":"$150,000 appropriation to Baker Tilly approved April 3, 2023","value":"150000","units":"USD","approximate":false,"source_speaker":"Councilman Lofredo"},{"category":"reclassification limits","detail":"A successful reclass cannot be considered again for five years; a request cannot be considered two years in a row","source_speaker":"Attorney Smith"},{"category":"current classification system","detail":"City uses a point-factor/internal equity system (Maximus) for interim reviews; Baker Tilly will provide market analysis","source_speaker":"Attorney Smith"}]

Proper_names:[{"name":"Baker Tilly","type":"organization"},{"name":"Maximus","type":"other"},{"name":"Municipal Employee Relations Act","type":"other"}]

Searchable_tags:["labor","reclassification","BakerTilly","Middletown","council"],"provenance":{"transcript_segments":[{"block_id_start":"SEG 096","block_id_end":"SEG 277","evidence_excerpt":"So you have, 2 labor management committee processes and, request before you tonight..." ,"reason_code":"topicintro"}]}