Minutes for September 14, 2006
Back to Home Page
DRAFT
Board of Trustees
Workshop Meeting
Thursday, September 14, 2006
1:00 p.m. – Building D&E
Madame Chairman Wilma Weglein called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
Ms. Weglein led the Pledge.
Mr. Torpy commented the employee handbook was an issue that was brought up at least two years ago. Work on it was interrupted by the hurricanes. Mr. Torpy introduced Christine Sutch, an attorney in the Torpy Group, and an expert in employment law. The overwhelming majority of the questions concerning the employee handbook are policy, which is strictly up to the Board of Trustees. Barefoot Bay’s employees are “at will” employees. This gives the Board broad discretion over the policies created and changes that can be made. Mr. Torpy questions may concern what is good management policy which will involve Mr. Hunt. One major issue is the grievance policy. Second is the vacation and sick policy, how it is accrued and how it is paid off on termination.
Quite a while ago, there was a question regarding whether or not a grievance procedure should be set up so employees could come to the Board if they don’t like a management decision. The current policy allows for the “chain of command” up to and including Mr. Hunt. The Board would have to deal only with Mr. Hunt’s decision. From there, the employee can approach the Board for review, and in that review process, the Board will look at the paperwork that has been created, not take testimony, and not reopen any investigation. Then the decision becomes either to agree with the manager, or send it back to the manager for review. The authority regarding employees is still vested with the Community Manager.
If the Board desired it could create a policy whereby an employee may grieve the Community Manager’s decision and actually take testimony, that is, information into evidence. A new set of governing procedures would have to be formulated. Mr. Torpy suggested in that wise, a sub-board be created to handle the procedures rather than the Trustees Board at regular meetings. Mr. Torpy acknowledged there would be more grievance activity than the Board might expect, and it would interfere with Bay business. Each grievance hearing would use up 2 or 3 hours.
Ms. McCahan clarified the grievance policy did not need to go into the handbook. Mr. Torpy concurred it was purely up to the Board. Mr. Bailey’s concern is for an equal judgment call. Mr. Torpy reminded the Board they are elected officials, and their opinions may change depending on where they are in the electoral process. Ms. Weglein commented the case presented at the September 8th meeting was from a resident. Mr. Torpy commented the timing of the case was “interesting”. It had not happened before, but when a policy is created there will be “several of those issues”. Mr. Bailey commented “she” isn’t an employee now; she is a former employee which is what created the opportunity for the appeal. Mr. Torpy urged the Board to “forget” the previous experience and talk about policy for the future. Ms. Howard commented “on that” saying the Board really doesn’t know “what went down”; the only people who know are him [Mr. Hunt] and the people involved. Mr. Torpy said concerning the concept of a review of a record, [you] sit down and [you] read it, and it’s about a particular action taken by your manager, which is fact. It’s a file that has been obtained by Barefoot Bay, and it is everything that is in that file, and [you] are able to sit down and read that file. That is the policy currently in place. Mr. Torpy said he “teaches to managers” that they document their files, why [you] did what [you] did. When the Board keeps its review to an established set of written documents, it gives the employee an opportunity to have nine looking at the case from an objective position and making a decision to let it stand or not.
Ms. McCahan asked the Board if it wanted to put the grievance policy in the employees’ handbook. Ms. Donahue said no. Ms. McCahan said no. Ms. Weglein concurred the Board should not be a part of the grievance procedure, and reiterated her suggestion that an outside committee or a committee of residents could handle grievances. Mr. Torpy gave a legal opinion: people who are not employees of the Bay, and have little knowledge of employee procedures, will invariably create legal problems for Barefoot Bay. There are certain rights the Board can delegate, and certain rights it can’t. Mr. Torpy acknowledged the merit of the idea, but said the “liability box is way too big.” Ms. Weglein obtained the Board’s general concurrence there will not be a grievance policy in the employee handbook.
Chris Such, page 16, “employee communications”, delete after the words “would like”. Mr. Bailey asked if the District had dealt with the issue of a liaison person between the employee and management. Mr. Hunt commented there is now an ombudsman on staff. Several employees have taken the opportunity to talk to management through this individual. Ms. Sutch urged the Board to come up with a title to identify this person in the handbook. Mr. Hunt said the ombudsman position is designated to an existing employee who is given an extra $1.00 an hour to compensate for the extra responsibility. Delete after the paragraph “you are encouraged without reprisal”. Ms. Sutch suggested leaving in “welcomes constructive suggestions”. On capping vacation hours which may be accrued and what happens when an employee is terminated who has accrued vacation and sick time: sick time is addressed in the handbook, but the vacation question was “left hanging”. Mr. Hunt responded when an employee leaves they are paid 100% for their vacation time, and 50% of their sick time over 80 hours.
One suggestion made was to tie an increased vacation accrual rate to years worked based on a 40-hour work week. The Board approved the new accrual rate and concurred. Mr. Hunt asked for time to write a “phase-in” plan; the new accrual rate will cost money that hasn’t been budgeted. Mr. Hunt’s plan would allow the District to absorb the extended benefit rather than incur out of pocket costs.
Ms. Donahue requested the day after Thanksgiving remain as a holiday. The Board concurred. The Board disapproved birthdays off. On reducing sick time accrual to 4 hours a month: Ms. Donahue requested it stay as is. The Board concurred to keep sick time accrual at 8 hours a month.
Sick employees must telephone prior to commencement of the shift. Mr. Hunt commented there hasn’t been abuse on this issue. Ms. Richards suggested if it’s working, don’t change it. The Board concurred.
Employees must use any accrued time over 240 hours or lose the excess in the year it was earned. “Use it or lose it.” Mr. Bailey requested the new language be placed in the handbook. Ms. Donahue suggested employees be told if they don’t take vacation in the year earned, they will be automatically paid for it. Mr. Hunt commented if a ceiling is place on vacation hours accrued in one year, a provision has to be considered for those employees with a couple of months vacation time accrued. Ms. Sutch clarified the suggestion by a former trustee had been to adjust the hours that could be accrued in a current year. Does this Board want to reduce the power to accumulate? The Board concurred to keep it the way it is.
Currently the most sick time an employee may accrue is 1,152 hours. The Board concurred with keeping it as is. Does this Board wish to eliminate the “buy back” policy on sick time? No. The Board will keep it as is.
Does management have the right to telephone an employee who is out on sick leave? Ms. McCahan suggested the language indicate “at the manager’s discretion” in cases of known abuses of sick leave. The Board concurred management has a right to telephone a sick employee when abuse is suspected.
When an employee is “sick” on the day before, or the day after, a regular day off or a holiday, the employee is required to bring in a doctor’s note. Ms. Donahue suggested in this case the employee should not be paid for that day. If the employee wishes to be paid, the employee must bring a doctor’s note. Mr. Hunt commented there is not a lot of abuse on this issue. Ms. Donahue suggested leaving it to the manager’s discretion. The Board concurred with leaving it as is.
Prohibiting personal cell phones during work hours. Mr. Hunt commented he and several employees use their personal cell phones for District business. Prohibiting their use entirely would cause expense to the District. Mr. Hunt commented this is another issue that comes to the notice of the Community Manager of it is being abused. Mr. Hunt allows emergency calls from family as long as calls don’t interfere with work. The Board concurred with leaving the cell phone issue to the discretion of management.
Provisions for safety: two people, one at the foot of an extension ladder while the other person uses the ladder. Mr. Hunt commented regarding CPR training: 24 employees were sent for training; the language should not reflect all employees. New defibrillators cost $1,800 apiece, and are placed in strategic locations. The Board concurred with extension ladders and changing the language on the CPR issue.
There are two sections on nepotism in the handbook which need to be combined. Florida Statute addresses the issue, as does the District’s internal policy. Ms. McCahan requested that a section be included that says all District property must be turned in prior to exit. Ms. Sutch commented those provisions are in the handbook already and she will check to make sure it is. Ms. Richards asked if employees sign a blanket statement regarding possession of keys. Mr. Hunt confirmed it was one statement rather than a statement for each key. Ms. McCahan asked if the District could legally hold back a paycheck until all property is turned in. Ms. Sutch said only if an employee had signed an agreement to the effect ahead of time that an amount would be deducted from the paycheck to cover the value of the missing property. It is against the law to withhold an employee’s final paycheck. Mr. Hunt commented there were no lists of keys kept until new locks were installed. “Key lists” are being implemented.
Ms. Sutch revisited the human resources issue. Mr. Hunt responded he felt the ombudsman in the administration office serves that purpose. Ms. Weglein asked if the Board hadn’t directed him to hire someone. Mr. Hunt responded that hadn’t been his understanding, and a new employee would cost the Bay about $49,820, which is in the bottom 10% of a U.S. Department of Labor survey for Brevard County. Ms. Sutch said she emailed Mr. Hunt a job description for the human resources position. The employee currently designated will be attending classes and receiving training. Serious disciplinary problems still come to Mr. Hunt’s desk. Mr. Smith recommended the Board defer to the Community Manager. Ms. Sutch commented clarification was needed; there are several disparate references as to who receives the paper work. Ms. McCahan reiterated she had asked for a flow chart pinpointing departments and specifically what each does. The Board concurred with leaving the human resources question the way it currently is.
On the issue of a 6 month period of employment probation: Ms. Weglein commented a 90 day probation is not long enough. Ms. Sutch explained state statutes provide for 90 days in order to avoid paying unemployment compensation if the employee is terminated within that time. The Board concurred the statutory requirements were sufficient.
Ms. Sutch commented severance pay is a policy issue. Mr. Hunt responded his recommendation had been presented to the Board: up to three weeks is at the Manager’s discretion, anything over that needs Board approval. Mr. Hunt said there have been occasions when he withheld it, and other times when he felt the departing employee was due severance pay. Ms. Weglein commented employment must be at least two years. Ms. Donahue commented severance pay is given upon termination, not voluntary quit. Mr. Hunt commented where an employee would sign a disclaimer in return for two weeks severance pay, discretion is the better part of valor on the part of the District. Mr. Hunt said time is subjective. When he terminated a certain department head, he gave the employee severance pay because he had recruited him and uprooted him. It was prudent to provide severance pay in exchange for a disclaimer against future liabilities. Ms. McCahan inquired into what the severance pay policy says. Mr. Hunt responded the severance pay policy states the Community Manager is entitled to grant up to three weeks severance pay to employees being terminated or asked to leave for any reason without Board approval if he or she deems it in the Bay’s best interests to do so. Any severance package that totals more than 3 weeks salary would require a majority approval of the Board. The manager may require a signed release in exchange for the severance pay if deemed appropriate. Included is an example of the signed release that he asked an employee to sign in exchange for severance pay.
Ms. Sutch expressed a concern regarding leaving it up to “discretion”. The potential liability is “you gave it to him, why didn’t you give it to me?” When an employee gives two weeks notice, would the Bay consider severance pay to avoid “short timer’s disease” by letting the person go before the two weeks is served out? Ms. Sutch urged the Board to adopt a policy that includes special circumstances such as reducing the work force and other scenarios. Mr. Hunt agreed to provide a chart showing years of service, causes of termination, etc., and what the severance pay would be for each. Mr. Smith urged the Board to resist micromanaging in the employee handbook. Mr. Hunt stated the “legal folks” would be more comfortable if a formal severance pay policy were in the handbook. The provision could say, “as an employee, you may be entitled to severance pay if the District terminates your employment.” Ms. Sutch commented severance pay can be an internal policy that does not appear in the handbook. Mr. Bailey asked that it be written, but not in the handbook.
On the issue of extending the bereavement policy to include “blended families” and in-laws: the Board concurred with leaving the policy as is. Mr. Bailey liked the idea of allowing employees to use District facilities, but felt residents would have a problem with it since residents pay for amenities. Ms. McCahan felt employees, on their badges, should be able to swim in the pools or perhaps receive a golf discount as a perk to help offset the low wages the Bay pays. Mr. Hunt suggested it would be better to figure the difference in pay vs. amenities and raise the pay rather than raise the problem. Ms. Richards spoke for an employee discount on food from the Lounge or the 19th Hole because of a half hour lunch. Ms. McCahan said that probably could be another internal policy that would benefit both the employees and the District [the District would get more food sales].
Bill Ferris commented grievance procedures can get into huge expenses. He complimented the Board on the direction it took on that issue. He is concerned with when pay periods begin and end. Ms. Donahue responded the pay period is Tuesday through Monday. Ms. Sutch commented the District is “covered” in the existing language.
Ms. Weglein entertained a motion to adjourn. Ms. Donahue made the motion. Second Mr. Bailey. The meeting adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
PHONE: (772) 664-3141
FAX: (772) 664-1928