Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel And Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustee and public commenter press trustees over fiscal-office hours and benefits; discussion stops short of action
Summary
A trustee read a prepared statement questioning a plan to raise a township fiscal employee's hours and provide benefits, alleging unfairness and potential favoritism; trustees discussed options including reverting hours, hiring an administrator, or redistributing duties but made no final staffing decision.
A staffing dispute over the township fiscal office dominated discussion at the July 13 Morgan Township meeting.
A trustee read a prepared statement questioning a recent change that would raise a fiscal employee's hours (from 20 toward 35 per week) and make that part-time employee eligible for benefits. The speaker calculated an estimated 31 paid days off per year under the proposed arrangement and said the change "is wasting taxpayer money" and "promoting unfair labor practices," adding that giving benefits to one part-time employee while subcontracting meeting minutes "looks very shady on the surface." The trustee also asked for a rescission of the subcontracted minutes and clearer, consistent personnel policies.
Trustees responded that the employee (referred to in discussion as Amy) told them she is willing to return to 20 hours per week or go full time, and that some administrator-level duties (insurance administration and budget work) take significant time. One trustee said the choice is effectively either part time (20 hours) or full time, not an intermittent hours approach, and warned that if hours reverted to 20 the board would need to fill the resulting gap.
A member of the public, Connie Reinhardt, urged trustees to honor a prior promise to provide an administrator after Chief Galloway left and said she agreed the fiscal officer faces extra work without a dedicated administrator. Reinhardt said trustees had not fulfilled that prior commitment and backed the view that administrative duties exceed what is reasonable for a single 20-hour employee.
Trustees discussed recruiting an administrator or assistant and noted that other townships use those models. No final staffing decision or vote occurred; trustees said they would discuss options, consider calculations of hours and pay, and return to the issue at a future meeting.
The meeting record includes heated exchanges about how a contested letter was produced and who authored it; one trustee denied writing a letter that another had alleged. Trustees emphasized the need for fair, consistent policy and agreed to take further internal steps to resolve the staffing and administrative-work distribution.
The matter remains open, and trustees asked staff to report back with options and clearer calculations of hours and costs.
