[0:01] I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

[0:07] for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for

[0:13] all

[0:21] call here

[0:26] here Panzer here.

[0:31] Uh, public comments. There's no one here. So, we move on to new business,

[0:37] policies and procedures. Um, I want to thank Lori. She has spent tremendous

[0:42] amount of time working on this, updating it. Um, and we'll just kind of go

[0:47] through it and our attention just kind of Yeah, we'll go page basically page by

[0:53] page and like, okay, what do you have? and uh you know if there's questions out

[0:57] or anything of significance we can chat about

[1:03] my go and I know this is track changes and so

[1:09] there's a lot of stuff that's like it was typed to maybe whatever but I did

[1:15] notice in here

[1:20] no you mean zeros as in under 1uction The first line it says zero, two, three,

[1:28] four, five. Notice there's zero. Can that be changed? No, that's actually not

[1:33] in my copy. So, what happens is with these documents, and I have no idea why

[1:37] this is occurring because I we use this all the time at work. What I see is

[1:42] different than what prints. Okay? And it's if you are looking at the shared

[1:46] file, it should be the same, but when you print it, so the numbering, the um

[1:51] table of contents numbers and the Um the final that am I? Okay.

[2:02] Um the org chart those will be updated once we ensure that these are the final

[2:09] the final wording everything that you want. Um yeah there shouldn't there will

[2:13] not be zeros. That was a long way to say that.

[2:17] Yeah. So like if you look at mine like even this number one shouldn't be here.

[2:22] It should be one two three. You know what I'm saying? It will it will wash

[2:26] out to be the way that it's supposed to be. You're welcome.

[2:34] Let's run with it. Do Well, my question is, do you want me to call out each of

[2:37] the items or do you just want if you have a comment on that page? Do you have

[2:42] any I've reviewed the whole thing, so if we

[2:46] go page by page and see any questions on this page? Yeah, that sounds good. Okay,

[2:50] so any questions? So, we'll start on page four because that's really kind of

[2:53] the start. Any questions on page

[2:57] four? Okay. Good. Page four. Question page five. Okay. Page five. Go for it.

[3:04] Uh, so dress code? Yes. I like the idea of dress code. My

[3:11] question is, do we should we have a dress code reference for dayto-day

[3:17] employees versus just referencing elected and appointed

[3:22] officials? Well, this was just basically dress codes to meetings and what

[3:27] for the scheduled meetings. Um,

[3:33] okay. So, would

[3:39] you guess is there an expectation. If so, I would say possibly we should had

[3:45] something that's I mean to me it should be the same expecting business schedule

[3:50] every day all the time. So maybe to be simplified to say

[3:55] any or maybe not that might not be the way to put it but I would say there

[3:59] should be something to prevent any issues. I wouldn't be opposed to

[4:04] Yeah, we could do that absolutely. So we could

[4:12] Okay. I think each administrator is probably expected, right, and express to

[4:18] their employees that are under them what they're looking for, right?

[4:25] Okay. Okay. So, I will update that to just

[4:29] every day and the business meetings. I mean, yeah. I mean, you could do it

[4:34] however you think's best to word it. It could be a separate line item, but I

[4:37] know it's going to say the same thing. I think we could say that

[4:44] that's a good way to word it. Okay. Noted. I will I'm I'm noting in

[4:50] the document as we're going. So I will make sure that all the updates get in

[4:55] there. Okay. Next up, page six. Um so you changed shall to should. I

[5:06] felt like it should be shall So to me sh is a requirement. Should is

[5:12] more of a suggestion. Got it. Change to

[5:24] sh. Any other

[5:31] items? Page seven.

[5:39] I didn't identify this before, but we had at one point felt the that we needed

[5:45] to put time. So, we put that 4 p.m. I see that's removed from the township

[5:49] clerk shall prepare the agenda on the first Thursday. We did that because

[5:54] sometimes there are day-to-day items, meetings that Mary is pulled into that

[6:00] she can't get it done right at 4. I'm okay with that. Just bring it up because

[6:04] I know it was a some discussion before

[6:10] I say yes I think we've I think we realize that things are it's a good call

[6:14] out but I also think that the way that this board has handled themselves too

[6:18] that almost some of these I think really can go away because

[6:23] it's been very fluent absolutely but it certainly is a good

[6:27] point Jim you know like to bring this stuff up

[6:32] I think it's important to remember too that We're doing this at this meeting,

[6:36] but if there's ever an item in this document that changes mid year, you

[6:42] would just add it to a meeting and we can amend the document. I do feel like

[6:45] these type of documents should be working documents that can be adjusted

[6:49] throughout the year depending on how your workflow changes or your staffing

[6:53] changes. That's a normal thing to have it be updated as needed. So, if for some

[6:58] reason you found the four o'clock was an issue, we could address it for sure. You

[7:02] know, and keep in mind previously before too when we spent all this time putting

[7:07] this forth this effort it only worked for the people that were willing to

[7:12] actually follow it. Remember we had we had we required a signature from

[7:17] everybody. There were several that a few that would not sign it and would not

[7:23] follow it. I mean right that we we wanted certain things to be done and

[7:28] they just were flat out not going to do it. And MTA even stated and said they

[7:32] don't have to do it. It's an elected official, you know. So, I think it goes

[7:36] back again to where this board is cohesive and gels. So, it's really going

[7:40] to be about what we're going to we're trying to put forth what we can

[7:45] to enforce to an degree that's only going to be enforceable to a certain

[7:49] extent. Absolutely. And I think it shows the public what your stance is in

[7:54] relation to how you want the operations to run. And by Yeah. And by following

[8:00] it, it's saying that you value the township in a way.

[8:08] All right. Um, page eight. So, I did add in here the invocation.

[8:15] Yes. So, I was gonna So, page eight nations. I think this is important part

[8:22] of our discussion. First, yeah, thank you. I I had brought uh requested this

[8:29] previously and situation where I work. This is exact language that

[8:35] they want to be clear that last time we tried adding it. The attorney suggested

[8:42] that we Richmond has had they added it fairly

[8:45] recently meeting within the last 15 years no concern.

[8:51] township they have pastor come in every meeting it's not no specific say the

[8:59] reason it's important to me of course I will say whether we prove it or not I

[9:05] will say this in I say this in my head or something because I think it's

[9:09] important to know that we're here for a time we're here for the right reason to

[9:13] me whether you're uh believe in God or not I think we anybody everybody in the

[9:20] wants somebody who uh wants has wisdom and courage to do what's right. So

[9:26] that's why I think it's important to it's not intended to be

[9:31] a Christian thing. It's not not trying to push something. It's more to remind

[9:36] us and I hope the whole board why we're

[9:41] here. That's the reason I think it's important.

[9:48] Yeah, this is something I definitely wanted to make sure that we called

[9:50] attention to that other

[9:55] comments. Do you guys have any issues with this?

[9:59] I'm not I don't have an issue with two.

[10:07] you want to talk about the I just kind Yeah. So, some of the changes I've made

[10:12] is is is in the public comment. So, in the public comments in the beginning of

[10:16] the meeting, that's to address issues we're specifically addressing that day,

[10:22] items that are on the agenda. So, in the beginning of the meeting, if somebody

[10:24] wants to discuss if we're talking about what kind of, you know, approval to buy

[10:28] cups and someone wants to come make a public comment specifically to that,

[10:31] they can. It's not generalized public comment. only to address issues that are

[10:36] on the agenda and at the end of the meeting prior to our comments then it's

[10:40] just generalized public comments and that's consistent with a lot of

[10:43] communities around so I I have very strong opinion on this item and I will

[10:48] say that since the way it's currently

[10:52] written previous chair have not we have not attempted to

[10:58] follow the way it's currently written which is the way it's intended to be

[11:02] written and we It really should be kind of the opposite of what you said at the

[11:08] beginning. Public comments I envisioned it was intended to be really for non

[11:13] agenda items and then when you have an item up there's an opportunity which we

[11:19] again we haven't done for the public to come. So the way it's should work in

[11:24] this way is we talk at a board level with no interruption and the public has

[11:30] a chance to weigh in and then it comes back to the board for

[11:34] Everybody here, of course, Mary's been on the board longer than I've been

[11:37] attending, but so I haven't seen her sit in the audience, but everybody else here

[11:41] has been in the audience, I'm sure, has had frustration or things they wanted to

[11:48] say. And it's to me, it's very hard to to have good comments if you don't know

[11:56] what the board's going to say. One way or the other, you come in, you see an

[12:00] agenda item, and you have to You could be either you're you're going

[12:06] to make assumptions of what the board's saying and you're going to say something

[12:10] probably maybe unnecessary. If it's one item that you're really against, you

[12:15] have and everybody's passionate about, you're going to have to sit through

[12:18] potentially a packed house saying the same thing. Then it comes to the board

[12:21] and the board's already already has the same opinion. So now you've wasted a lot

[12:26] of time. This is the way I see it. And so I've been out there very

[12:32] you want now when something comes up and there's board discussion discussing you

[12:37] your experience may provide some valuable insight that the board would

[12:40] want to hear but you don't think of that until you hear the board so in my

[12:44] opinion it's for our residents and for those

[12:48] specifically those who take the time to come to the meeting I think it

[12:53] is much better for them to have the opportunity to speak after we've spoken

[12:57] at board level I I would personally like to see

[13:02] remain this way or maybe with that minor language change of non at the beginning

[13:07] again to prevent somebody to make it clear that you're going to have an

[13:10] opportunity to speak later. I'd like to see us keep this for now and try to

[13:15] actually utilize that and see how it floats. I feel like this is right out of

[13:19] MTA's playbook. I went to a meeting and MTA said in the beginning of the meeting

[13:23] it's it's public comments specifically to agenda items. During the meeting

[13:27] that's our tenure on the meeting. If we open it for each issue, it it's not

[13:32] going to have their time. It's it's not well, it is their time because they're a

[13:36] res. But that's why at the beginning of the meeting, you want to speak to any

[13:39] agenda item. That's when you when you say what you said. Doesn't mean I won't

[13:42] entertain something. But having an argument at home and saying tell me what

[13:45] you want before you even know my opinion and don't talk to me. You know, like

[13:49] that's not how a real discussion would go. But this is straight from I actually

[13:53] posed a question in front of 200 people and they all like Jim would you be so if

[13:58] we went back to public comments at the top if that were to be non-aggenda items

[14:05] um at the top then we go through approve the minutes current bills revenue go

[14:10] through everything and then when we get down to um after correspondence because

[14:15] with unfinished business we potentially still have if you were to put public

[14:20] comments in there for agenda items only. That would be at at the start of

[14:25] unfinished business. Because I know what you're saying, but if somebody if we're

[14:29] making a decision on something like said to buy the the coffee cups, why would

[14:33] you want it at the end after we already made the decision? Would you wanted it

[14:36] before? So, Monica says up there and says, "I don't think you should be

[14:41] buying this. You should buy it from Sam's Club before we actually discuss it

[14:47] with the unfinished business." That way, somebody isn't forgetting about it.

[14:50] misunderstanding what I'm saying. So if we're talking about

[14:55] cups the public so what would happen is we we talk about okay we'd like to buy

[15:00] them from Sam's Club here's why I bought a lot is there any comments from the

[15:04] audience this is before we take any action and they go you know you can buy

[15:08] them cheaper if you go to Staples then it comes back to the board okay thanks

[15:13] now it's back to board that was actually I didn't think of that we should buy

[15:18] from Staples and then we would vote on that's kind of

[15:22] I that and a lot of this I base because of my experience in the city. This is

[15:26] how the city of Richmond run it and they don't get that many audience members but

[15:30] when they do that it's been my observations it's allowed the discussion

[15:38] stay calm you know people get frustrated when they hear the discussion they're

[15:43] not going to have a chance to speak really we as people really want a chance

[15:46] to talk before it's too late if you haven't talked ahead of time in my

[15:52] opinion it just you say a lot that maybe is unnecessary

[15:56] We may we may decide they may be thinking Staples is the way to go. Then

[16:01] we talk up here and it's part of our discussion. Somebody here says, "Hey,

[16:05] it's cheaper at st." So we just leave it at public comment. They're going to ask

[16:08] questions anyway. Well, if you don't if you if they don't talk at the beginning

[16:14] about agenda items. No, the beginning is where they I know what I mean is if you

[16:18] allow the conversation during the item. If you allow them to talk about an

[16:22] agenda item during the agenda item. We don't we have we've never done it. So

[16:28] you guys don't have the experience with that. And if the board doesn't want

[16:32] that's fine. I'm trying to I'm deleting my case but I'm here to

[16:36] support you have to have one public period. So we got one in the in the

[16:40] beginning and then one at the end. Yeah. But what I'm getting at is if you allow

[16:43] it during each agenda item and the board talks then you give them opportunity to

[16:48] talk and many times there's no discussion no comments then it comes

[16:51] back to the board. But when you do that, you technically

[16:57] you don't have public comments on agenda items at the beginning or else you're

[17:02] wasting time again because they're going to let them say their comments at the

[17:06] item so the board can consider them or you you risk it just it's less efficient

[17:13] and I'm confident that it's less efficient. However, if if the board

[17:17] feels that that's not the way to do it, okay, but it's important to me. I'm

[17:20] really saying my piece. you guys support and

[17:24] I know exactly where you're coming from because I've been out there.

[17:29] I would just yell it out. Well, then I guess and I think what I just I just did

[17:35] and I and I think that um Chris has been very

[17:43] gracious and I think you still have the well again this is this is straight out

[17:51] of MTA's book and I was in a room with 100 supervisors.

[17:57] What I mean is if every meeting

[18:02] says, "Can I speak to all my you should you can't let

[18:08] somebody talk once and then a different meeting say I don't want to hear your

[18:11] comment whatever whatever reason." So I think either you got you got to follow

[18:16] the agenda. So however you think best is what it is. So Richmond must be

[18:23] and I every township is different. I can say that probably I I would stand up and

[18:30] say that I probably have the most experience going for my customers for

[18:34] every township. I have not seen Richmond do where they go, you know, each agenda

[18:40] item Richmond city. Most municipalities if they don't only have

[18:46] normally they only have one public comment where I have seen some that have

[18:51] done this but they've done the top with only uh non agenda items at the top and

[18:58] then when they get down to the bottom that they would open it up but it would

[19:00] only be prior to the new business so that that way it was a little bit

[19:05] fresher so that you weren't missing out you know you could get through all of

[19:09] that stuff you didn't have to even be here you could come towards the

[19:12] And I think it can go both ways on how you do that. But once you start I've

[19:17] never seen municipalities do that at planning commission or um board level.

[19:22] When we've gone when we got planning commission approval and we go the next

[19:25] week for board level approval. I've never seen where they've given those

[19:29] that each agenda item breakdown that they've given it. And I'm not saying

[19:34] that it's wrong. I'll give you one last example. We were doing the sewer stuff

[19:37] when I was in the audience was talking They were not

[19:43] understanding what they were reading. And I

[19:47] was I I can't remember if they let me talk or not, but I remember being really

[19:51] frustrated going I just I want to go. They had the opportunity to go and

[19:54] clarify. No, you're you're not reading this right because I read these before

[19:59] and I know I had some knowledge there. So that was really hard for me. That's

[20:03] why I'm here now.

[20:07] But I struggled with that. So that to me is why I'm so passionate about if you

[20:12] don't allow the public to say something at the right time, you know,

[20:18] after the board discussion just keep it at

[20:26] public and that's why beginning

[20:34] the only thing that I can say when I was writing this and I don't know if I'm

[20:37] allowed to say this But when I was writing it and talking with Chris and

[20:41] thinking of it as a citizen because I'm writing it working but I'm thinking as a

[20:46] citizen. The one thing that it does do is it is it it pushes the citizens to

[20:53] read the agendas so they come to the meeting with something thoughtful as

[20:59] opposed to waiting to hear what you have to say and knee-jerk responding where

[21:03] you might get um they might not have been a had the time to to think through

[21:09] it. But in addition, I think that the you know one of the things as Chris

[21:15] said there are a lot of ship that that try to have it agenda items only to

[21:20] start um partly for that reason. So they read the agenda but in addition let me

[21:26] just say as a citizen none of you are not you're all accessible. So if there

[21:32] was an agenda meet if there was a meeting and I had an item that I really

[21:35] was passionate about you all are available. Chris is here every day. I

[21:39] would be coming in the door and having a conversation with Chris before that

[21:42] board meeting and saying as a citizen I want to talk about this and he's more

[21:47] than willing to say here's what we came up with. I think what's interesting is

[21:51] is the challenges you may have had previously you wouldn't have now because

[21:55] of the board that you have. That's just as a citizen. Well, I guess we're

[22:01] assuming that the agenda has enough detail where proposed true motion that

[22:07] doesn't always happen. That's true. Okay. The other one, Jim,

[22:12] I'll I'll throw at you again just again throwing that out there to see if it

[22:16] would work. Again, if you did public comments at the beginning of non-aggenda

[22:21] items, and then as you get down there, now keep in mind if we do this where we

[22:25] go through the minutes, the bills, the say that there's an additional let's say

[22:30] there's 20 minutes additional to that. Okay? And if you get down to then 10 to

[22:34] public comments, if you Good. Marcia, ask her a question. If she states

[22:40] something at public comments for an agenda item though, that if we went the

[22:44] opposite way at the top, but we spent 20 minutes going through the agenda and

[22:49] then we get down there. If we allowed her to speak just before we're ready to

[22:53] go into the business, it's much fresher and you know with what she just said,

[22:58] making a statement versus if you say it at the very top. Sure. If we spent 20

[23:03] minutes, a half hour going through the the rest of the meeting before we get

[23:07] down there, it's very possible that we could have forgotten what was said by um

[23:12] you know, the taxpayer out there. Whereas, if we gave them an opportunity

[23:16] just before we rolled in and we started going through those items, would that be

[23:19] a little bit better to give them that interaction? Well, if anybody's going to

[23:23] forget, it would be me because I' been However, I

[23:26] think I think it would be more confusing. I prefer it seems like I'm

[23:31] the only this way. So I would say if we're going to change it back the way it

[23:36] used to, I think there should be I take notes and I'm sure you guys do

[23:42] the same thing. So you're just saying generalize public accounts beginning and

[23:44] at the end instead of Steve was saying should we separate agenda non agenda

[23:50] items and then agenda items a little later. I think that might get confusing

[23:54] maybe. Well, one of the things I was thinking about it just popped in my head

[23:58] about making it generalized. If someone wants to come make a public comment

[24:00] about an event, they probably want to say at the beginning of the meeting.

[24:03] Yeah, for sure. So, that's a thought, too. So, you just double it up. Public

[24:07] comment. Public comment. Done. And we don't have to have two items. You want

[24:10] to say you could just put Just put I respect what you're saying wanting to do

[24:16] because we've all been outside outside of Mary.

[24:20] She has been on that other side. But and there's not I get it, but I also

[24:25] understand that sometimes people can get really off tangent and get going. We've

[24:30] never really put the clock out there. I've been Chesterfield. I've just been

[24:33] there the last two two meetings and the uh person next to the chair sits right

[24:39] there with the phone and you hear the click through the microphone. Click,

[24:42] there's the timer and it's going and when it's at three minutes looks right

[24:45] at the chair and the chair is like, I really don't want to do this and be

[24:49] like, "Okay, sorry, your three minutes are up." and cuts them off right at

[24:52] three minutes. I've never seen that happen here. So, I think that again it's

[24:56] back to the gracious of the chair, right? Ultimately, the chair's meeting

[25:00] can we were told can literally run the meeting however the chair deems so even

[25:05] if we put this in place, right? And I think we're much better. Yeah, we've

[25:10] been Well, remember we were told I will do it as I please. This is my me. I will

[25:15] never forget that thing, you know. So, but I I like what you're saying.

[25:23] Y so it'll be as yeah we could just remove the two address item agenda items

[25:29] only. So I moved it to public comments and then public comments. Well so

[25:35] so right in the beginning they'll have the option to give public comments and

[25:38] then right do you want that? No, I I personally think it should just you

[25:42] should put I put public comments and you can either put nothing after that or put

[25:48] agenda and nonaggenda. You know, that might be that that also I would just put

[25:53] public. Yeah, that's what I would not say I would not have a second public

[25:57] comments later on. Just public comments just later on. This would be when I

[26:02] would say public comments. Anybody who wish to address whether or make a

[26:06] general conversation and where would you like it at in the beginning or the end?

[26:11] Keep everything the same. Just make a public comment. Okay.

[26:18] Do we want Yeah, that's the one I was referring to.

[26:22] That's one that MTA really pushes. And here's the reason why. If I make a vote,

[26:27] I'm held accountable because they can come up afterwards and say they're gonna

[26:29] say, "I thought that was stupid." I don't see the value, but if they want,

[26:33] that's fine, too. That just was Yeah. For them to vent and for us to

[26:38] go to that. Well, by then it's too late.

[26:47] So, what if we give them It's always the good thing to do three minutes for

[26:50] public comments. What at the bottom if you give them one minute?

[26:55] So that that way it doesn't turn into parentheses on the top. Three minutes.

[26:59] Yep. And then the bottom. What about one minute? Because if you don't like a

[27:03] vote, you should be able to say within a minute. Two because one just sounds like

[27:09] I was just trying to make it so that we're speeding it up so that it isn't

[27:13] a and I think it's fair to say a barrage of three minute public comments. Now at

[27:19] the end of why and how. So three minutes and then two minutes and I'm fine with

[27:24] two and obviously look at it and treat it appropriately per case individual but

[27:30] something so that it's there spelled out. Is that fair? That's fair. Under

[27:34] where it says consent agendas and reports that needs to go back to consent

[27:39] agenda

[27:44] which includes department reports. So we will go back then to consent

[27:50] agenda. We're going to keep that as consent. Well, at least that's a very

[27:53] suggestion. I agree where you would like you would like it to stay the way that

[27:56] it is. Okay. Any reason? Do you want to talk longer or do you want to pass down

[28:01] to anybody else? Well, it's it's just all those you can make one motion for

[28:06] everything. Thing is, we can also add something if you want to pull something

[28:10] there if somebody has an issue. Um chair of the meeting may remove such agenda

[28:16] items from the consent agenda for discussion consideration and move it

[28:22] under you can make it number seven or number seven.

[28:32] The one thing I will ask is regardless of which way you go on this is for the

[28:36] fire department budget the fire department report because they're two

[28:39] and a half times our budget. Um, it's a huge chief's gonna hate me for this and

[28:44] he brings a lot of information. I want to piggy back to that. So, if you go

[28:48] back and you look at when uh when chief came up here and explained about the um

[28:54] fire alarms, he talked about the carbon monoxide detectors, when he talked about

[28:59] the car seats, when he talked about the the morale at the fire hall. Um,

[29:07] special reports or but what I'm saying what I'm getting at, Mary, is that when

[29:11] he came up there and he and he and he vocalized that I was taken back and it's

[29:16] not even something that I would think about, you know, to talk to the, you

[29:19] know, to the chief when Jim brings up a good point where he wants to have public

[29:22] comments on here because he was trying to interact. Well, we're trying to get

[29:26] interaction to give everybody what we're talking you know what we're conveying

[29:31] back to as elected officials to our taxpayers and really we look at this. I

[29:35] realize that there's more motions that go along behind there. But on the other

[29:38] hand, these meetings last month was 18 minutes long. The meeting prior was No,

[29:44] I think we should go back to have reading every report. Have a reading to

[29:48] go through them, not just the fire report. This is me. Mary had hers where

[29:51] she'd like the consent. I think that it should be open considering that if it

[29:56] picks up another 20 minutes to a meeting, which I I think is probably

[30:00] reasonable, last month would have put us at

[30:05] And I agree. I think when Ken

[30:11] report I think it's important that the people know what's going on and a lot of

[30:18] them

[30:27] committing commissions and such

[30:31] think that's their time to this is what we're doing. We need your input. The

[30:36] audience was in gas or I would say like you heard I heard them like you heard

[30:41] that you heard you know out of their mouth in emotion that they vocalized

[30:46] because they had heard what was going on just at the fire department

[30:51] and I I just think that sometimes if we get just in a hurry everything just gets

[30:55] rushed.

[31:00] So I used the example before reading this in your report was kind of

[31:06] like painful for me. But could could our standard practice be if

[31:11] somebody's here and wants to read it, they would read it. However, if they're

[31:15] not very sure I would agree if if if all is good

[31:22] at the uh senior center, they did some events if you want to summarize it. I

[31:27] think there's nothing wrong with summarizing it. If there's an issue,

[31:30] right, we're going to discuss the issue, right? So, we would have not necessarily

[31:34] just pulled it. It's already going to be out. And if it's a good one, Chris

[31:38] summarizes and highlights it. Just goes through it real quick and that's it. You

[31:42] know, you the building one, it goes through really, really quick on there.

[31:45] The ordinance, I mean, okay, you might spend two minutes on the ordinance uh

[31:51] enforcement going through that. Um, the fire chief is going to be the biggest

[31:54] one. And the rest of those, Ken's going to probably have a

[31:59] It may seem five or 10 minutes. It's probably two minutes when you add those

[32:03] up. Parks and Rex, that's only three minutes, four months out of the year.

[32:08] That's what I said. We're looking 20 minutes, I would think, at max to add to

[32:14] it. And it puts our meeting now at maybe 7:45, 8:00, even 8:10. We were taken

[32:22] before before we were making motions to take

[32:27] and extend right when we had those old meetings before.

[32:33] I don't have a strong position either way. That's why it wasn't to me. It

[32:38] wasn't just the time. It was the value of the

[32:45] timebody agenda. That's why we should comment. Maybe that's one benefit.

[32:51] I would say we would also encourage

[32:56] people as far as Mary's I would agree with Mary's comment on the consent

[33:00] agenda for that sake that they can read. However,

[33:05] if the majority of the board wants to read the reports in one form, that's

[33:10] fine.

[33:17] I do I like the fire report because it is If we if we want I mean that's so if

[33:22] we had a consent agenda technically you could say chief could you read the

[33:27] report that's saying but Steve you're saying you'd prefer that they really

[33:32] gloss over I I think if we go through them chief does his normal report go

[33:36] through everything like you would Monica as treasurer is going to give us report

[33:39] say you have in front of you your um your budget here it is everything is uh

[33:45] balanced out where it's supposed to be at does anybody have any questions if

[33:49] there's no question. Boom. We're done. You got that done in 30 seconds. But you

[33:53] at least you you you expressed it saying here it is rather than everybody out

[33:58] there wondering where do we even I haven't

[34:01] heard anything. It's been six months I've been coming and not saying to come

[34:04] to you talking to you personally which they can but we are here at the meeting

[34:08] to just express some of those things. Again the senior center that can be

[34:13] summarized and just it's not a very long deal. I think we forget how long that

[34:18] they never They the only way they got off the rail

[34:22] was because when we got to sewer and water, that's where they got off the

[34:25] rail because it was always a fight. Code enforcement was a fight

[34:30] because we were never given accurate information, right? We were always

[34:34] misled because of stuff was hidden or we got it the night of handing. We're

[34:39] sitting here and we're all wondering why the copy machine's going and it get it

[34:43] got handed here. throw in the garbage. Again, I I just go back to this board

[34:47] saying it's a completely new board that if you spend and we go through it

[34:52] briefly, summarize it, a summarization is totally good. So, the intent of the

[34:56] consent agenda is really not discussion. So, I would say it sounds like we should

[35:02] consent agenda and it's really not. Then we just have motion to approve the

[35:05] minutes, motion to approve the bills. That's only for motion.

[35:11] Yeah. Before we file the reports, we had the opportunity to make those comments

[35:17] that you guys can speak. We don't have to read verbatim messages. That's really

[35:22] what was unnecessary to me. But if you say senior center had three events, they

[35:27] seem like they had a good turnout. If you need a copy of the report, if it's

[35:30] here or you could highlight, oh, they did this. That sounded pretty neat. Just

[35:33] basically cliff notes. Okay. That's the case. Can I get clarity? Are

[35:39] you saying that basically the first three items are a consent agenda and

[35:42] then the fourth one is a department report? I'm saying no. They're all

[35:46] separate. You have to approve the minutes and motion the bills with

[35:50] motion. So would we call so for sake would the approval minutes be item six

[35:55] current bills or is it still 6B? We can make it whatever you like.

[36:03] That is what it always has been. And the only thing that I changed on here was

[36:06] consent agenda to reports. Well, this most recent update, we changed it to

[36:12] consent agenda. So, prior to that, I can't remember. This one

[36:27] had two sections.

[36:34] recognition agenda language.

[36:42] So, previously it just said I mean version I don't know July of 2024. Yeah.

[36:48] So you have to go prior to that there's but it's not when they did the version

[36:53] it would have had the blue line in it and there's nothing here. It literally

[36:57] reads that this is always

[37:02] this one has they're in here. Yes, we met a few times possibly got changed the

[37:07] time before it definitely got changed. So this one it said updated 2023. So

[37:14] maybe it was the 2023.

[37:20] Got it.

[37:24] Okay. So, you want to see what it says.

[37:30] What was the other thing you said? I'm sorry. I'm just going to say bottom of

[37:35] page. Yes. Yes.

[37:45] The chair will show open discussion matter to the public. So, that needs to

[37:50] be updated if we're changing the We're changing that to not open it to

[37:56] the public. So just it should it should very kind of match your standard agenda

[38:01] language that you put on the bottom. Got it.

[38:06] So going back to a previous version.

[38:14] Yeah, because the only one I have was the this one to go off of.

[38:21] That's what because this one was the 24 edition. This is what

[38:25] Okay. I'll try and send you

[38:29] the rumor to send you a previous version of this

[38:33] too, which sounds fantast. That's

[38:43] just the one thing I was kind of hoping for tonight is is for B to see if we

[38:47] could all come to consensus and agree on setting that as part of so next meeting

[38:52] we can actually follow that

[38:58] in the order of business under B if we could adopt that so going forward

[39:02] starting next meeting. So they were all they were all numbered that's

[39:10] bills or not. Okay, I'll number. Got it. Do you since you're right here

[39:18] and it's fresh, do you want to stay right here? Yeah, if we can

[39:24] clean be up because that's one thing I'd like to to start doing it that way.

[39:28] Okay, that's okay. That's the

[39:33] way you have I want a consensus. I really do. I like us all agree.

[39:45] Um I just want to agree that this is the way we can run the meetings and just

[39:49] start doing it that way.

[39:55] Yeah, exactly.

[40:09] B and C.

[40:14] Yeah, B is just the order we update C to this.

[40:20] C is C would be the order. So like that you do the call to order. Yeah, B is

[40:25] just how we run the you know the order in which we run it.

[40:28] section order.

[40:37] Well, see that's on the next page. Yeah. So, there's changes need to

[40:52] recogn. So, that's that needs to be updated or needs to be it back to what

[40:58] it previously was. Yes.

[41:03] I have it highlighted in green which means change it. So we going to take and

[41:09] do B right now to formally make a uh a vote to it so that we can move forward

[41:14] or not move forward.

[41:27] I just want to start running. It's the only reason it last I mean the whole

[41:32] like the invocation how the you know public comments

[41:40] I just don't like well we can also just like you said the chair can run we want

[41:45] but we all have a verbal agreement that follow this way. Yeah. I just don't

[41:48] believe and I'm just going to do what I say. So I want it seems to me like

[41:53] majority we're good I'm good with this way. Okay. Again, it's not preferred,

[41:58] but the majority and that's fine. So, I'm okay that I'm going to support that.

[42:02] Okay, that's that's enough, I think. I'll I'll make a motion that we

[42:08] adopt for tonight so we can start right away. So, we actually have it as a

[42:12] formal that we uh I make a motion that we adopt B or an order of business as

[42:20] presented with changes that we discussed.

[42:27] policy section. And I'm willing I I can modify that,

[42:33] too.

[42:39] So, we went through and we discussed it and we're good with where we're at. At

[42:42] least this way. It formalizes it. It's accurate. I mean, that's what we're here

[42:47] doing. I don't feel that we're I know you're we're not doing anything behind

[42:51] anybody's. We publicized it. They w here. We're spending the time to to be

[42:56] here and take the time out to do it. We're just ready to hit the ground

[43:00] running.

[43:06] Yes.

[43:09] Yes. Yes. Okay. Go to C.

[43:14] Right. Yeah. Lord already highlighted that there's

[43:18] some it needs to be changed to be consistent

[43:31] paragraph interesting the community of residency.

[43:37] So we we added that because there are so we've been saying that people have to

[43:43] say their address and finding that that is not what a lot of townships do. So we

[43:49] figured just saying the community that they're resident in because it is a

[43:52] public meeting they can attend if they choose to. But I think it's important

[43:56] that you know is it a resident or isn't it a resident I mean I think that's

[43:59] helpful. Are we Another thing that I've noticed if it's

[44:04] too much clerical was that a lot of municipalities that I've been going to

[44:08] recently have a signin sheet at the podium

[44:12] so that it's clear when somebody forgets to say their name and I've seen up here

[44:17] where they start talking and someone says excuse me I need you to sign in

[44:22] like you're standing we're not letting you speak until we watch you sign your

[44:26] name address Even if you're a resident or not, it

[44:31] could be a box right there. Check it this way. That way we know that we have

[44:36] something. And I'm not looking to add more clerical work for you, Mary. But I

[44:38] just meant So if you're saying if they want to

[44:43] speak at the podium where it's written, we want them

[44:47] to say where they live, but you want them to write their name and address.

[44:52] They don't have to say their address. It could be either or. I think that's all

[44:55] it was. Most of the time though we get majority people will state their name

[44:59] and their address and then they'll start to kind of like I feel like go downhill

[45:05] and veer away from finishing the rest of their address of where that they're at

[45:08] because they just think that we know who they are and we probably do but if we're

[45:12] being held to a certain guideline I think when you come to the podium to be

[45:16] able to speak you should also you know conform to the rules that we have here.

[45:21] You speak your name say what your address is you know you don't have to

[45:24] get We're not giving, but they need to state

[45:28] it, but I think they should write it down as well because they still say it

[45:31] both ways. What's the benefit of writing down so we

[45:35] have a record of it?

[45:47] But like you said, if they were writing it, we would have it

[45:56] I do like that the idea though of the residency because we had that one that

[46:01] one when they did the grow ordinance all these people called in from out. Not a

[46:05] single person from our town, but everybody else was. And I think it's

[46:08] relative for the board when we're making a decision to know they live like six

[46:12] counties away. So it's not relative to our ma. I think you know the residency

[46:16] is important.

[46:20] So I have no issues with the way that do you want

[46:39] at the end that' be fine. So,

[46:42] you were wanting to put a piece of paper that requires them to write their name

[46:48] and their res on that sign. No, put your address.

[46:54] Yeah. Still need your address. You don't think so? I think Monica's trying

[47:02] to prevent people feeling intimidated. So, if Mary's going to attach it to the

[47:07] meeting minutes now, then their address would be out there. They didn't say that

[47:11] they're not

[47:17] I think that would be helpful in

[47:20] case we find the need to follow up with somebody at least have their name.

[47:27] was still stating if they're res. I think that check and check box if

[47:34] you're reset.

[47:46] Well, it should be then up at the agenda. Well, so under standard agenda

[47:50] language under we would add Oh, right here it says audience not where maybe

[47:57] commenting from the floor. She'll do so from the podium ask by their name and

[48:01] community of residency. Okay.

[48:05] So, you may have to amend that to say

[48:20] all right. Anything else on page? I'm

[48:24] sorry. page at our top discussion matter the chair shall open discuss she's gonna

[48:30] update that yes I have I updated that so I'll make sure we update that to match

[48:39] all right page 10

[48:50] so the says to promote efficient administration man responsible for

[48:56] day-to-day operations as directed by the supervisor and then so you eliminated

[49:02] some it was extreme extremely repetitive dayto-day day dayto day so it's

[49:08] literally now just department managers are responsible for operations as

[49:13] directed day-to-day operations as directed by the supervisor done like

[49:17] it's one line then the next line that was eliminated says the supervisor and

[49:22] the board formulate personnel policies and office procedures and supervisor

[49:27] will be responsible for the implementation and that is the purpose

[49:30] of this policy. So the policy is the policy and procedures and if it's a um

[49:36] an appointed official then the official is responsible for whatever policies

[49:42] they want that person unnecessary. Yes. Yeah.

[49:51] Absolutely. All right. Uh page

[50:00] 11. Not a whole lot of changes there. So the the only thing I added was that

[50:07] the job description will be provided to the employee upon hire and when updates

[50:11] are made. Like an easy one.

[50:16] page 12. Um, so the one thing that we are

[50:22] going to add in is um a new employee um review form. I don't know that we'll use

[50:28] the word appraisal. I don't really like that word for employees, just an annual

[50:32] review form. Um, and I can share that out. I did not put that in this

[50:36] document, but they each will use it the way

[50:41] they see fit for

[50:45] but consistency with the document.

[50:56] This page page 13.

[51:01] So the 1560 hours is 30 hours a week

[51:09] basically. So really everybody

[51:14] part time, right? They previously had everyone

[51:18] listed as fulltime, which was kind of odd.

[51:23] I know we had some long discussion figur.

[51:27] So, basically, we just updated this to say that all of the general fund

[51:32] employees and specific general fund, not including the fire department because

[51:35] they're very different. Their schedule is very different. um that they are

[51:40] considered part-time, that they submit their time sheets um and we just called

[51:46] out the fact that they are not offered medical benefits. Um and they are

[51:51] eligible to receive the life insurance policy that we have. So that you know

[51:55] they are eligible for life insurance policies and um and called out the fact

[51:59] that if the township is closed during normal business hours on a holiday, they

[52:03] will have the day off with regular compensation. So it's not

[52:08] Yeah, the only thing I thought should be clarified is that pay should be based

[52:14] on their normal hours work or if they so say they only maybe they don't work

[52:20] Mondays for some reason then I would say should they be paid for Monday. Agreed.

[52:25] We can note that that it's based on their normal hours worked. Yeah. Agreed.

[52:41] Um the other section is just around um just to note that um we did add a line

[52:49] that for under the deputies which actually kind of goes into the next page

[52:55] but it talks about their total hours cannot exceed the amount budgeted but

[52:59] that an exception can be made with board approval only when there are

[53:02] extenduating circumstances.

[53:07] Well, I think it's come up during the election years where Don does more work

[53:12] on the election stuff.

[53:17] And then we called out kind of all other township employee uh positions. So they

[53:23] do not receive the vacation or holiday or briefment. Um so ahead. Nope. Go

[53:30] right ahead. One was bookkeeper is called out

[53:35] separately and they're not considered reason it's not under part time. Yes.

[53:39] Because they're not part-time. Um they're an hourly rate and they don't

[53:43] have a set number of hours they work. So they're not given the life insurance

[53:46] policy. Um they're they're kind of like a Yeah.

[53:51] Yeah. So they're just paid based on their time sheets and it's going to be

[53:55] based on whatever the budget is a little bit different. Got it. Yep.

[54:02] So

[54:08] then our salary yes it says but there's a time

[54:22] yes employees

[54:27] not for salaried employees So like I would

[54:32] enter my time eight hours a day whatever and then if

[54:40] I work

[54:46] over time he gets time for respond respond to

[54:53] emergency and that is essentially the way. So I thought it seemed to have a

[54:59] time law. But then on the same I said, well,

[55:03] should all the employee salary be entering their times and would that

[55:09] place the time? Well, like for the parks and record

[55:13] guys, it's just kind of difficult for him. Basically, it's just it's just to

[55:16] show that, you know, that they're doing stuff because I I get comments about

[55:22] certain people leaving early on this. I can go, no, I have the documentation.

[55:25] It's always there. And like the code enforcement officer, you know, what does

[55:28] he do during a month? You give him a stipen. Well, this is what he does

[55:31] during the month. And it's basically just saying, look, taxpayers, this is

[55:34] this is what they do on a daily bas I need to I'm expected to be there.

[55:40] So, maybe that's different or maybe that's not different, but this

[55:50] and I apologize that I just realized I left a sentence between providing their

[55:54] monthly I put in a line about the code enforcer, but that's because we changed

[55:59] it and that shouldn't be right there. That's an odd spot for that.

[56:16] Yeah. And then the liquor inspector is paid on the stipend. And then kind of

[56:22] down below we get into the fire department. So obviously fire

[56:26] department's really different um but there are some similarities. So the

[56:31] full-time um firefighters are on the bargaining agreement. The part-time

[56:37] firefighters they we wanted to call out that they will be eligible for the

[56:42] earned sick time that is the new law in Michigan the law and that time is

[56:47] accured um per policy at one hour for every 30 hours worked. And

[56:54] um they do not receive vacation or bereavement days.

[56:59] So did we not have we didn't obviously didn't have part time or on call before?

[57:04] None of it. No. And then called out the the on call the on call and I probably

[57:10] should call this out. They do not receive the ESTA time.

[57:14] Um so I will make sure that we get that

[57:19] noted. Now just Note that when the collective bargaining right now doesn't

[57:24] include ESTA, but when it comes up for negotiations, it will it will be part of

[57:29] the negotiation conversation. Are they below the minimum requirement right

[57:34] now? They're above the minimum requirement.

[57:38] Shouldn't matter, but you know, something they can discuss because

[57:41] legally something has to be put in there documentation wise. Correct. Yeah.

[57:47] All right. Well, it sounds like

[57:52] They do. Yeah,

[58:09] so this one we just changed to the employee compensation. We just changed

[58:12] it just to say that the payroll checks will be issued in a timely manner by

[58:16] direct deposit. Um, we didn't call out. It's kind of silly to think like we we

[58:21] we changed the bi-weekly because not all of us are paid bi-weekly. So, for

[58:27] example, the compensation that's paid to let's say the people that are on the

[58:32] salary that's might not be a bi-weekly. I'm not paid bi-weekly. I'm paid based

[58:36] on my time sheet. So, we just called out that it will be paid in a timely manner

[58:41] based, you know, it's based on your individual

[58:44] position. Not a huge thing. Um, we removed number two because that's

[58:52] silly. So, you don't need that. Um, this is saying that you will review

[58:57] employment compensation will review will occur during the six months and then it

[59:02] talks about um that it will be adjusted and this this very old language. So,

[59:09] when you're doing your annual evaluations, you're going to be

[59:12] determining whether or not they're meeting the muster of what you need. But

[59:15] then in addition, you will bring it to your

[59:18] budget meetings when it's time for budgets. So it's not really something

[59:22] that we would do middle of the year that often.

[59:28] All right. Um what other items? Oh, we're getting

[59:32] into the big stuff. All right, let's do it. Okay,

[59:37] I'm excited. Yes. All right, let's see. Oh, really? Call out number number

[59:47] two there at the top near the top where below

[59:52] department manager shall be responsible then right below it where it says in

[59:55] general it's the township's policy that compensation is based on and changed it

[59:59] to board approval because it does not seem that it was based on cost of

[1:00:05] living that can't be. All right. Um, okay. So, this is where

[1:00:13] we get into the big details. All right. So, what we would

[1:00:16] like to do is right now your part-time associates um previously were given

[1:00:25] vacation days. Um, they were given uh one

[1:00:33] week. Um, they were given one week. And Mary, correct me if I'm wrong on any of

[1:00:38] this because I'm looking in the cross talk. Hold on one second. Let me pull

[1:00:42] this up. Make sure I'm saying the right things here.

[1:00:54] Yes. So, we are changing that.

[1:00:59] We're proposing proposing. Sorry, I should change those words. Proposing.

[1:01:04] Um, and what this does is it combines the it combines the PTO with the um,

[1:01:12] ESTA time that they're given. So, you see hours in there and those are not in

[1:01:16] there because the ESTA is we're going to there's like an an ESTA estimate, let's

[1:01:22] say. So, we have uh, you know, the number of hours they work annually. They

[1:01:28] they should get one hour for every 30 hours they work. What we will do is we

[1:01:32] will roll their vacation time into their ESTA. So they will get, for example, if

[1:01:39] they've worked between one and three years of service.

[1:01:45] I'm sorry, it would be four actually, isn't it? It's four. Um, one Chris, did

[1:01:49] we say one and three? I think we said one and three. Yeah, I'm missing a year.

[1:01:54] I apologize. So one in three years of service, you would get two weeks of PTO

[1:01:58] plus the ESTA, which would be, you know, one hour for every 30 hours that they've

[1:02:03] worked. We would put that into one combined time bank. And the reason we do

[1:02:08] that is because it's very enticing for a

[1:02:12] professional to be able to utilize that time the way that they see fit. And the

[1:02:17] law doesn't require us to separate the banks. You can have them all as one as

[1:02:24] long as you allow the banks to roll over, which these will roll over

[1:02:29] annually, but they cannot take more time off than you allow. So that's so

[1:02:35] important to know. So even if there are four weeks of vacation time sitting in

[1:02:39] this bank, an employee could come up to any one of you to come up to Chris and

[1:02:43] say, "Hey Chris, I'd like to take four weeks off." And he's going to say, "That

[1:02:48] does not work for us. You can't have four weeks off." you know, we can give

[1:02:52] you a week off because that's like our normal thing. We could give you a week

[1:02:55] and a day. It has to be it has to work for what the township needs are and we

[1:03:00] have to ensure that when that person is off there's cross coverage. So the the

[1:03:05] beautiful thing between the two new employees that we have that we have here

[1:03:09] is that they do cross cover each other. That's the bulk of who this applies to

[1:03:13] is the two of them and then also um our our senior center associate.

[1:03:21] Um but in in addition to that what we've done it sounds like a lot of hours. It

[1:03:27] really isn't because even if we separated it they still get the time.

[1:03:30] What we're doing is we're saying okay we value you as an associate. We'd like to

[1:03:35] combine them the two together. We're making it easy for us. The tracking is

[1:03:38] not difficult. um and they have the ability to take the time in the way that

[1:03:44] they see fit aligning with the needs of the township. Um it does roll over but

[1:03:50] they cannot cash it out when they leave. Previously vacation time they could cash

[1:03:55] it out when they left. So if they were here five previously if they were here

[1:04:00] five or more years and they left on you know let's say I'm

[1:04:05] making this up like middle of the year they would have three weeks loaded into

[1:04:09] their think we would cash that out to them. So, ESTA is very particular in

[1:04:14] saying whatever your policy is is how we work it. So, you don't have to cash it

[1:04:19] out. I would recommend you don't cash it out because that's just a cost to the

[1:04:23] township. If you don't use it, you lose. Go ahead and get more. Nope. Go for it.

[1:04:29] You said a lot. And I'm not a nature person, so this is like

[1:04:34] But um

[1:04:38] your opinion you should combine the two. Yes.

[1:04:44] You said that they're not required. They don't

[1:04:48] lose it on an annual basis. So it would continue

[1:04:55] to not say I want to take three weeks vacation

[1:05:02] quitting vacation and I'm going to quit. No, you can deny it because I mean you

[1:05:07] don't know they're going to quit whatever. But you would pro but this is

[1:05:12] where it comes into play that in in a normal

[1:05:17] world you have to do what works for the township and what works for the township

[1:05:21] is not granting anybody a three-week vacation unless there was some

[1:05:25] extenduating circumstances. You know if someone was like hey my child is getting

[1:05:29] married in England and I need to go over there and I need to prepare things.

[1:05:32] There may be maybe more than two weeks that's given but it has to approved by

[1:05:38] whoever their leader is. So there is there's checks and balance. Yes, there's

[1:05:43] a checks and balance and there's like minimal room for somebody to take

[1:05:46] advantage of it. Um there's always a chance that they

[1:05:51] will and if you do that's the employee you don't want there anyway. So I mean

[1:05:55] obviously say as manager I'll say it's a pain guys call

[1:06:05] and I had those discussions

[1:06:18] maybe not

[1:06:23] this benefit doesn't affect the budget right I do have

[1:06:28] questions I feel like the amount of vacation that you're proposing I feel

[1:06:33] like it's not typical Yeah, go for it.

[1:06:40] Previously it was looks like it was after one year you get a week, three

[1:06:45] years two weeks and five or more you get three weeks. You're proposing two weeks

[1:06:49] after one year service and four weeks after four or

[1:06:54] more I feel like that's kind of short. You're saying short not

[1:07:02] I feel like two weeks after one year is

[1:07:08] I would I guess here's my opinion after year, two weeks after two

[1:07:14] years, three weeks after five years, four weeks after 10 years. That's

[1:07:19] probably more standard to get a month

[1:07:23] off at least in my experience

[1:07:28] there. Seems like a lot of vacation.

[1:07:34] This is my two cents though is we're not hiring 18-y old kids and 20-y old kids.

[1:07:38] We're hiring people that have families and I want to celebrate the fact that I

[1:07:42] want them to to go on vacation. I want them to spend time with the family. So,

[1:07:46] I think it's the people we're hiring isn't typical. You know, they're more

[1:07:50] established in their lives and there's things they want to do and I, you know,

[1:07:53] and I I want to give that for them. We bring them in at a wage that isn't, you

[1:07:57] know, high and one of the benefits they get is is we're awesome to work with,

[1:08:01] obviously, and you know, have that time off as needed because I do I want to I

[1:08:06] want to support the fact that I want you to go on vacations with your family, you

[1:08:09] know, because if you're happy then we're productive. I think it supports the fact

[1:08:13] that we are a township that's for the citizens, right? That's we are a one big

[1:08:19] family. Fist, right? And the one thing about

[1:08:23] this time is that if you were I'm just looking at my own employer at one year

[1:08:28] aligns with two weeks. But that's because we are hiring people for a

[1:08:32] career, not a job. And that's the one thing about these two positions. They

[1:08:36] truly are a career. I mean, right now there is another township with one of

[1:08:39] these positions posted. And the posting is for 68,000 a year with vacation time.

[1:08:45] So, and I get it. It's a much it's a much bigger It's a much bigger township.

[1:08:53] It's much bigger, but it also comes with a much larger staff. It's not just one

[1:08:57] person. So, I think realizing that we're requesting these associates, even with

[1:09:02] our senior center, we're requesting our associates to kind of be the jack of all

[1:09:06] trades. They need to be flexible and say, "Okay, today I'm doing this and I'm

[1:09:10] going to cover this person." And we want people to make this a career. So,

[1:09:17] good cell. Thank you. Thank you. That is a good cell. with the fire department.

[1:09:22] Yes.

[1:09:25] What happens is they say contract says we

[1:09:31] need people and so when we're paying

[1:09:40] and it may be necessary because that's the competitive market that they're in

[1:09:43] but that's terrible as far as the budget. Here is the expectation that we

[1:09:49] have the We're not having to add staff. Yeah,

[1:09:53] there's no overtime that's going to be required because

[1:09:57] the fire department is they have a daily minimum, right? So, they can't they

[1:10:01] can't have a parttime that has a fulltime over.

[1:10:10] Well, I will support that though. I'll support the philosophy based on the

[1:10:13] skill set. That's how

[1:10:18] other make Yeah. And that's just it. So when they

[1:10:21] take time off, there there is no, as I said, this doesn't change the budget.

[1:10:24] There's no additional, you know, costs incurred because we have to bring people

[1:10:27] in the back bill. The important part to also note is um that as you mentioned,

[1:10:33] Steve, it's about the evaluation of the associates. So when you're doing your

[1:10:39] annual evaluations, if you're finding that people are taking advantage of time

[1:10:44] off, we're going to be tracking it. We're going those are things that you

[1:10:47] should be doing regardless. And if you're finding that somebody is really

[1:10:51] not not handling their PTO properly and they're not doing what you need as a

[1:10:56] township associate, then that's the time to move that person up and out and not

[1:11:00] just sit with the status quo. And I think you have a good board that will

[1:11:04] hold accountable. You know, something else that I um we struggled with our

[1:11:08] business for a long time was that um that benefits package. Uh it was always

[1:11:15] uh because it's a lot of money. This is not affecting us because it's not

[1:11:19] affecting the budget, which is great. Um, but what we had realized was that

[1:11:24] our employee retention was not as good as what it is now. Actually, it's great

[1:11:30] now, I will say, because we have looked at that. I say valuation and I don't

[1:11:35] treat any of our employers like that. They're like a family to us versus just

[1:11:39] they're not a number, but we say is evaluation to an employee. But giving

[1:11:43] them more vacation time or looking at the work with them um makes it and and

[1:11:50] and know these are men. These are not women. There's I think there's a

[1:11:53] difference sometimes between men and women in terms of how they most of our

[1:11:57] guys are like I don't want to take the vacation time because I just want to

[1:11:59] work. Women on the other hand want to take some vacation time. So there's some

[1:12:02] differences that you juggle. But back to what we realized was that when we looked

[1:12:07] at trying to offer some more benefits such as vacation time, they are now

[1:12:13] utilizing it. They're now going out with their girlfriends and they're going on a

[1:12:17] 4-day weekend. They're two, you know, Saturday and Sunday, they're obviously

[1:12:21] off on their own. We don't work those days, but Monday and Friday, they're

[1:12:24] getting paid for and they don't have to stress about it. They can go enjoy some

[1:12:28] time and they come back with a really recharged battery. Typically,

[1:12:33] benefit that comes with that is that when they know that that they've got

[1:12:36] that um support and when their employer appreciates what's that they you know

[1:12:42] they do. We have people that are now five, eight, 10. I have a 22year

[1:12:48] employee with us. He's different because it was you know different times back

[1:12:52] then. But our younger guys though that are in their mid20s to

[1:12:57] mid30s, they're they're really enjoying it now. They're not looking for more

[1:13:01] than four weeks because they don't want to be gone that long. But anywhere from

[1:13:06] and we do two weeks right off the get-go because the first week is technically

[1:13:10] you we do paid uh holidays. So whatever days that if they fall, you get paid for

[1:13:15] that and then their second week is actually their real vacation week that

[1:13:19] they can take off. So even though they have two paid weeks, really only one is

[1:13:24] if they choose that they don't want to be paid for the holidays, they can

[1:13:26] choose to do that and then take But then they don't get paid for those holidays.

[1:13:31] Most of the time they take that pay. But for the other part that they get that

[1:13:35] they just the retention and then the other benefit to that keeping them here,

[1:13:40] they're not training somebody. Somebody else new is not coming in that has

[1:13:43] learned. That's a really big big plus, right? I mean, when you bring somebody

[1:13:48] in that has been here for us that's been here for five years, the amount of work

[1:13:52] that they've done versus us bringing in somebody new, it's just like, holy

[1:13:57] smokes. I have to pick up the I have to pick up their slack because they're

[1:14:00] gone. I'm trying to train this person. I'm not giving them the full uh benefit

[1:14:05] and satisfaction that they need to learn. They then sometimes become

[1:14:08] frustrated to say, "Hey, you know what? This isn't for me because you haven't

[1:14:12] been able to spend time with them and then you're sorry because it's like, you

[1:14:16] know, I'm sorry. I didn't realize it." That's a little different than here, but

[1:14:20] it still applies to that I think where if we keep people

[1:14:23] here, everything just flows, right? I It's

[1:14:29] it's a no. Well, then the only which we added previously only clarification I

[1:14:34] think needs to be made is again it needs to be based on their average weekly

[1:14:38] hours worked from like the previous year. Actually we had some language in

[1:14:43] the last time the previous anniversary year whatever. However you want it

[1:14:49] should be clarified.

[1:14:59] Um, I added in the FMLA, which I was a little shocked you all didn't have.

[1:15:05] That's a requirement. Um, yep. And so, and so just to clarify though, an FMLA

[1:15:13] policy is usually about 12 pages long. You do not have a copy of that here. It

[1:15:18] should be pretty robust. Um, but in the FMLA policy, if someone had a qualifying

[1:15:24] leave of absence, which there's a whole host of documentation that satisfies

[1:15:28] being qualified, um, they would be using one week of that PTO for the first part

[1:15:35] of that leave. So, that's one thing to note, but the attorney would have to

[1:15:41] give the blessing on that policy. So, you say please refer to the FMLA policy.

[1:15:46] specific to a township like you should have one or is that the policy that's

[1:15:50] specific to a policy that I wrote that you do not have that needs to go to the

[1:15:54] attorney for review just to make sure all the eyes are dotted into reference

[1:16:01] you can you can but the federal policy allows one of two things it allows you

[1:16:07] to tweak it a little bit you can require your employee to use two weeks of PTO

[1:16:11] for the beginning of the FMLA or one week and Then how you handle the FMLA

[1:16:17] communication can vary slightly based on your preference. So I thought you were

[1:16:23] they were required to use all. No. So usually what you do is is that

[1:16:30] you can use one week or two weeks. Those are the one week is usually the minimum

[1:16:35] that they want to be used. But some employers will say we'll allow you to

[1:16:39] use two weeks because it's a benefit to the employee to get paid for that second

[1:16:43] week. Once the FMLA kicks in, the associate

[1:16:47] has the opportunity to supplement their pay. So they can say, "I'd like to use

[1:16:53] my PTO or I'd like not to." That's the FMLA part. That's what covers them to

[1:16:59] say, "Not only is your job secure, but you have a choice on whether or not you

[1:17:05] want to use your PTO time." Um, and and that I want your attorney to review

[1:17:12] before we bless that section of this and because what I did was is

[1:17:18] compare it to other township policies because they're all a little different.

[1:17:21] Just um so just making sure that we have that the previous policy did call out a

[1:17:27] personal leave. Um, and that would basically be if they didn't qualify for

[1:17:32] the FMLA, if they did weren't just taking a vacation time, if there was

[1:17:36] then they would have the opportunity to apply for personal leave that is

[1:17:40] strictly granted by the leader of that person. That's unpaid time. That's if we

[1:17:47] can if we can grant that, we can. And if not, we we don't. So that was in the

[1:17:53] previous document, but it was that was the only leave called out in the

[1:17:57] previous document.

[1:18:02] So all right, uh page I think we're down to page 16, but

[1:18:09] a lot of that was crossed off with the the PTO.

[1:18:15] Um anything else on that page? Okay, let's go to 17.

[1:18:23] Um, just on this page, just really quickly just called out that meal

[1:18:27] periods are provided to employees as indicated above, but they are not a

[1:18:30] legal requirement. I really loved when people say that. No, no, no, it's

[1:18:34] legally required. It is not. Um, but we did add in um nursing mothers because we

[1:18:39] do have younger associates um that are of could be any age, but just saying um

[1:18:46] and want to make sure that they know that one of the is that we have to

[1:18:51] provide them reasonable time to pump if needed and that we provide them a space

[1:18:56] if they would choose that isn't the bathroom. So, wanted to make sure we

[1:19:00] called that out. Do we have such a space?

[1:19:05] As long as we have an office that we or even an area that we can close off,

[1:19:11] we're okay. It could be as long as it's an area, we

[1:19:16] just have to mark it off. And it's it's literally cover us. So that way that

[1:19:20] associate knows they could come forward and request that. Are there mothers who

[1:19:25] have no problem pumping in the bathroom? Absolutely. But we have to make sure

[1:19:28] that we offer it. It's fair. Um bereavement days. I just called out

[1:19:34] kind of what is defined as immediate family because we had that in there, but

[1:19:38] it didn't really define it. It's not something we're probably going to

[1:19:41] request a death certificate on, but just making sure that we note it's there.

[1:19:46] Yeah, exactly. So, uh, above that you referenced it still says fulltime and

[1:19:51] part-time employees will be eliminated. I thought full time employees. The only

[1:19:55] reason why I left that in is because the full-time associates at the fire

[1:19:58] department get bereavement days if I recall.

[1:20:02] Yes, but that's technically in the their bargaining contract. So, I don't even

[1:20:06] know that I need it in here. I just left it. So, you're I could take that out.

[1:20:15] All right.

[1:20:19] um employee safety. So you'll see some duplication in this area to um what I

[1:20:27] would call like citizen public safety which is later in this document. But

[1:20:31] it's basically just calling out that um that you know if we have an accident or

[1:20:36] injury that we are going to um that we are going to notify the direct manager

[1:20:42] or subsequently this would be for employees. Um and then they're going to

[1:20:46] notify the manager that will be reported to the supervisor. We have an injury

[1:20:50] report that they would need to complete. Um if appropriate, we may send them to a

[1:20:54] health or to the ER. Um the township is insured, so we would notify Mary that

[1:21:00] we've had an injury on the premises and just want to make sure that we're

[1:21:04] creating a culture of safety in all of our areas. Are you thinking that safety

[1:21:10] for your should you have I think that should be attached.

[1:21:18] Yes. Um actually I have two. So there's one that has um the parts of the body so

[1:21:26] you can kind of identify this is where the injury occurred and it gives a

[1:21:29] little statement and then there's one that can be completed by the manager if

[1:21:33] they witnessed it or if there was another witness.

[1:21:36] Um just good stuff to have on hand. Correct. Yep. They go together. Yep.

[1:21:41] Good stuff to have on hand. Um just for us as

[1:21:46] And

[1:21:50] don't cut your finger. This scissor. Exactly.

[1:21:55] Um, this workforce authorization, I just deleted the whole thing because this is

[1:22:00] part of your budgeting process. So, if you needed another associate, you're

[1:22:04] going to bring it through that venue or bring it to some other venue. So, all

[1:22:11] right. All right. Next section, the only thing I added was that we would um be

[1:22:16] completing a background check on our associates that we

[1:22:20] hired. That was it there. And then um as I mentioned inserting that evaluation

[1:22:26] form, that's why I highlighted it so that we know that's for me to note to

[1:22:30] insert the evaluation form there. Um took out this section on

[1:22:37] seniority because it's called out in the section to be there. All

[1:22:45] right.

[1:22:58] fully support. However, it says if such actions occur for termination or from

[1:23:05] previously understood that come from the board by

[1:23:10] well this would be the grounds to bring it to that venue. So you you guys tell

[1:23:14] me if you want that in there or if you don't. It's not a

[1:23:17] big it's I just have seen it in other documents, but I thought if you wanted

[1:23:21] it, you could have it. If not, it's an easy remove. We could just leave the

[1:23:25] language as is. Hey, if you're not doing something

[1:23:30] wrong, you shouldn't have to worry about it. Right. Okay. So, I'll take that

[1:23:33] last. Are you saying keep that sentence that

[1:23:36] was added or remove that? No, I mean it can stay. Oh, if you want

[1:23:41] to remove I'm good. Either I'm saying just if

[1:23:45] you're if you're doing what you're supposed to be doing, you have nothing

[1:23:48] to worry about. I was just saying legally should say

[1:23:54] something we can't actually do. If we keep it, I would say

[1:24:00] take it up. The petition will be started to

[1:24:04] I took it off. Um

[1:24:09] social media, same thing. This this was so this is for this is to

[1:24:15] support us as a township and to support in addition um not just you as the board

[1:24:22] um anyone that works for the township appointed or not and including our fire

[1:24:26] department. Um so the the intent of the intent is that we will use social media

[1:24:32] as a means for educating the public and promoting a positive environment. No

[1:24:36] incident or concern is to be posted publicly without review from the

[1:24:40] township supervisor first. And I will give you the context of why I'm adding

[1:24:44] this. Is this Yeah. So, so let's just say that that uh frequently I see things

[1:24:50] on Facebook and one such item would be that there was an accident on a major

[1:24:56] freeway and a fire department posted that that accident occurred

[1:25:02] before anyone at the township level knew that it occurred. photos were taken. And

[1:25:07] so that was the moment where I thought to myself, well, it would be really good

[1:25:11] to add that into this document so that all of our associates know that we do

[1:25:15] not post things on social media because thinking

[1:25:20] that what's to say that that scene was set up properly? What's to say that if

[1:25:25] someone got in an accident because of that photo, you know, just things like I

[1:25:29] don't I don't disagree with that at all. So, however, you're saying that

[1:25:36] Facebook account. I want to post that accident. You're saying that I can't do

[1:25:42] that without if you're posting it on behalf of the township. So, I can

[1:25:45] clarify that if you're posting it as trusty getser, that's different because

[1:25:50] you're acting on behalf of the township. But if you're posting it like hey

[1:25:54] family, I saw this this weekend. Yes, that is your that's your personal. We

[1:25:58] don't have any authority over that. It should be clarified. That's how I read

[1:26:02] it. Okay. So I can change that. I think this speaks more to the employees

[1:26:06] though. Yeah. You know, like Well, so the same thing though. You're an elected

[1:26:09] official. I can't tell you what you can and can't post. Katie wants to post.

[1:26:13] Everybody here is an idiot. You're saying she can't do that.

[1:26:17] No, you take So you take Well, no. Take an employee policy where I work. Take

[1:26:22] the policy where I work. I literally sign something that if I have any

[1:26:26] defamation of the organization I work for that is grounds for termination. I

[1:26:30] am not allowed to talk about work. I'm not to pictures about work the if it's

[1:26:35] in a positive nature. Yes. If I'm saying, "Hey, we're hiring. Come work

[1:26:39] for us." The good thing is I would never do that because I work for a great

[1:26:42] organization. But they they realize that there are people out there and it is

[1:26:46] rounds for a lawsuit. So in our world, it's a little different because you are

[1:26:50] elected and appointed and all that good stuff. However, our fire department is

[1:26:56] hired. I mean, these are Yeah. I guess another example would be the they would

[1:27:00] never do this. are wonderful human beings, but someone put in a permit for

[1:27:03] something and they post online, can you believe this city at this address? They

[1:27:06] didn't take care of the property. Something like that is not okay. Just

[1:27:11] because again, they would never do it. All I'm only bringing it up because I

[1:27:15] just want to make sure we put it legal and enforceable. I don't think I can as

[1:27:20] elected officials, I can't tell you what you can and can't do. I mean, I can't

[1:27:24] you don't have to get approval from me because you're, you know, you're my

[1:27:26] peer. So, I mean, I think this refers to more of the employees.

[1:27:31] And we can have the attorney double check this section. I highlighted it

[1:27:34] just to make sure. No, you can take on that battle

[1:27:38] yourself. Oh, it's in here. So, you'll get to

[1:27:42] that. Um, all right. So, education just took

[1:27:47] out the fact because this was saying that we won't grant time to employees

[1:27:51] for studying for exams or class prep, but we would if it's related to work.

[1:27:56] So, we just took that out. I mean, they're not going to be doing the

[1:27:59] homework here regardless. Um, page

[1:28:05] 21. Anything on page 21?

[1:28:10] Page 22.

[1:28:23] 23. Tell me if I'm going too fast.

[1:28:29] 24

[1:28:33] says you were

[1:28:37] removed work out subject to discharge. Yeah, that's not legal to say that. So

[1:28:45] this um one second

[1:28:52] I was referring to more like a wildat where slow down. I think that's really

[1:28:57] language before the CBA. I think that's before like the CBA came

[1:29:03] into place slow down thing which is wild.

[1:29:09] We'll double check it. I mean, yeah,

[1:29:15] it was removed. So, I guess I never really paid much attention to it, but

[1:29:18] now that it's removed, I wonder why. Yeah.

[1:29:24] Down below the um visitor and taxpayer incident. Same similar documentation to

[1:29:29] the employee, but just making sure that we're noting that if any visitor or

[1:29:33] taxpayer has an incident or accident on any of our premises that we will be

[1:29:37] notified and that we'll do and we'll have an incident report. We didn't have

[1:29:41] that. The under the next section is the who's

[1:29:45] authorized to talk to the attorney. Um I agree with everyone that's

[1:29:50] listened. However, the village they communicate I believe

[1:29:58] through I was wanted us all to think about what is the best way to contact

[1:30:04] the attorney. I've thought before I don't

[1:30:09] email that much when I do I definitely copy the court. So I think if anything

[1:30:14] we should have to copy the court for records. However, it may be beneficial

[1:30:20] to even close have the like email the clerk. I

[1:30:27] could draft the email and send it to Mary. Mary, can you send this to the

[1:30:31] attorney and then she would maybe copy me when she sent it to prevent dup? How

[1:30:37] how do we prevent duplicate communication? trying to figure out is

[1:30:40] there a way to because I might call or email even if I copied the clerk. Okay,

[1:30:47] before we get a response, Steve does the same thing. He copies the we all ask the

[1:30:50] same question before we could get responses and say, "Oh, you know, Mary

[1:30:55] would get a response and maybe distribute to the whole board, but we're

[1:30:59] all asking potentially there's time especially if it's a verbal because

[1:31:03] somebody calls now that's physically time before they can they hang up. I got

[1:31:07] to talk to Is there something that should we put

[1:31:11] language in here regarding that minimize duplicate?

[1:31:18] I don't know how you would put it in and I don't know that anybody abuses it. I

[1:31:21] know what you're getting at but then we're back to Well, it's not so much

[1:31:27] abuse, but it was because somebody didn't communicate their question

[1:31:33] in a timely manner. So, how would you how do you put in something though that

[1:31:39] I would say all communicate. You could say all communication would go through

[1:31:44] the clerk. Now, it wouldn't be me saying, "Mary, can you draft an email?"

[1:31:48] It would be me going, "Here's my question, Mary. Could you forward this

[1:31:51] to the attorney?" And then she might say, "Steve already asked that question.

[1:31:55] When I get the response, I'll send out." But I think you're asking I I see. But

[1:32:00] then you're asking Mary to take on more work that she has to remember or forgot

[1:32:06] that I had already asked that and I would refer back to saying that as a

[1:32:11] board we all have the ability to contact there's really that's almost a

[1:32:19] I guess part of our we all have hired the attorney we all fire the attorney we

[1:32:24] are all elected there's no if you put something in here there's nothing you

[1:32:30] know about this yeah I think it's one of those things

[1:32:34] where we could just all emails to the attorney get CC to you. I would say at a

[1:32:39] minimum that should be the case for records. I'm okay with it. I'm just tell

[1:32:44] saying that we're trying to put something into place that really though

[1:32:46] is not enforceable. I'm not looking to abuse it. I don't think anybody here is,

[1:32:51] but I'm just saying that you're putting something in potentially into verbiage

[1:32:55] that really by law you can't you can't say one of us five could not all call up

[1:33:01] and make the same. It would be dumb. I'm not trying to say that.

[1:33:07] Well, I think the thing is I think there's enough of the communication that

[1:33:11] we don't have that situation or so I guess technically if there's

[1:33:17] no there's no dialogue technically I could email the

[1:33:22] attorney and copy the whole board as long as you don't respond.

[1:33:28] So that might be a way to in the times that I've communicated I've definitely

[1:33:34] tried to As soon as I got a response, I tried to

[1:33:36] send something to the whole board so they knew that I called. I think rather

[1:33:40] than doing it, I think rather than spelling it out, I think just the fact

[1:33:43] of knowing that we openly here have all said we're going to do our best to

[1:33:48] communicate with one another, which I think has been done for the last four

[1:33:51] months now very well to rather than putting something into place that says

[1:33:55] it that really can't constrict us from doing that. Does that make sense?

[1:34:03] Okay. I don't even think we should add the shoulder. I think a common courtesy

[1:34:08] is I'm only looking to not overburden Mary from one more item and it doesn't

[1:34:13] seem like a lot, but if there were five emails, it's five more things that she

[1:34:18] that Mary has to make sure that she gets to then uh you know pass it along to

[1:34:23] everybody else. I think if you make a a phone call or an email to the attorney,

[1:34:28] you want to send it out to everybody. I don't think there's anything wrong with

[1:34:30] that. You just know mentally that you're going to do that. you're going to

[1:34:33] provide that to your best ability to confirm it with some of the things more

[1:34:39] ZBA stuff like when you're on ZBA and you want that it's going to be more

[1:34:42] specific to what you're doing and we're not asking because you're on the ZBA

[1:34:46] doing that work like me I do a lot of stuff

[1:34:49] enforcement I just back and forth attorney

[1:34:53] ask questions yeah I'll think of questions that are

[1:35:00] one of the things that's really really nice is

[1:35:02] She's sitting right there. At every meeting they're there. So, a lot of that

[1:35:06] gives us that not you. You're over here. No, that is one of the benefits of it as

[1:35:11] we not as much doing that because the

[1:35:15] attorney's here. I still No offense to Christine, but I

[1:35:19] still feel that that's not going to be a solution because obviously we had to

[1:35:24] discuss

[1:35:28] meeting and I still feel like this is very

[1:35:32] I feel like we're not expecting can't be expected to have answers on the spot.

[1:35:38] Not entirely supporting that attorney being here.

[1:35:44] What I would do is I would just

[1:35:49] send

[1:35:58] you good conversation. All right. Um, page

[1:36:08] 25,

[1:36:14] 26, page 27. Just so you know, that the items that are marked under the

[1:36:19] assessor, um, Kylie Kylie, Kylie, Kylie, Sky, I always

[1:36:25] have to like do that. Um, Kylie updated this based on their

[1:36:30] contract verbage. So, this is align with what's in their contract. There's

[1:36:34] nothing different. So, she took it right from that

[1:36:38] playbook. And that goes into page

[1:36:43] 28. All right. Page

[1:36:49] 29. Page 29. We just that what's in blue is just aligning the verbage that was

[1:36:57] That's what's Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. It just aligns with what was in

[1:37:04] the other um associates. I guess I see the word should

[1:37:32] Page 20, I mean page 30.

[1:37:41] Page 31.

[1:37:45] Good

[1:37:47] stuff. Page 32. So, this is just standard langage. I didn't change

[1:37:53] anything in here because Just normal

[1:38:02] verbage

[1:38:10] 334 highlighted that no expense vouchers will be on it that was eliminated.

[1:38:19] So just to be clear what that's saying is expense vouchers from previous

[1:38:24] budget will be

[1:38:38] I know what it said before tonight said no will be honored from previous years

[1:38:45] being removed I see what you're saying now that

[1:38:48] it's saying no but you know what's interesting it wasn't it was not um was

[1:38:53] in here that wasn't honored. So, we're we're just taking it out, but it's not

[1:38:58] going to happen. Technically though, if

[1:39:03] somebody shame on them, they don't turn it in

[1:39:07] timely doesn't mean that they legally can't. I know we had the problem. I get

[1:39:13] it. But I'm just so I think it is probably

[1:39:18] even hope that doesn't happen. We were paying

[1:39:23] Seven months later, right? No. How do you And how do you

[1:39:27] ever And how do you justify it? How do you I almost would even be willing that

[1:39:32] you need to have your expense turned in with 30 days. Yeah. Something that says

[1:39:37] that you have to have it in and if you don't that you you snooze, you lose.

[1:39:42] We're not going to accept a bill. that when we get to that

[1:39:45] I know but I just that I would rather see an actual time rather than not

[1:39:50] anything so that we can't just bring it back

[1:39:56] unless you brought it here and you explained to the board hey here's a

[1:39:59] circumstance what happened then the board could decide if they were going to

[1:40:04] change your opinion on it but at least have something

[1:40:13] Do you want me to add that in? Do you think it should go there? This is

[1:40:17] for authorization. Is there like a different section where we would put

[1:40:23] uh reimbursement or anything like that?

[1:40:29] Do you think this is the should we add it under

[1:40:41] see there's there's a expenditure authorization

[1:40:46] there's under page 41 there's expenditure authorization references

[1:40:52] professional services travel membership might do that might be

[1:41:05] Actually, there's expense reimbursement section couple pages later. Page

[1:41:09] 44 right here. Personal expenses. That's what we're referring

[1:41:14] to, right? So, I think that's where we should add page 44.

[1:41:26] So, I would I guess I would go a little bit further than say 30. And reason I

[1:41:31] say this because if you did for a personal expense, you potentially could

[1:41:36] charge it on your own credit card, right? So, if you charge it on your own

[1:41:40] credit card, you got to get reimbured. You at least got to wait for your

[1:41:43] statement to come through or you have a just to say 45 days. You have a

[1:41:50] receipt, but that's fine, too. But you You better have a receipt. Not just

[1:41:54] here's my statement right here. See this? I just meant if you had if you

[1:41:58] gave yourself just instead of a 30day or 45 day just a little bit so that you had

[1:42:03] that statement if there was if there was a question you could bring that

[1:42:06] statement. Good thing is you might be doing

[1:42:10] something over a period of time. You're going to get some receipts.

[1:42:20] So you said we said 45. So under you could get yours

[1:42:28] credit for me. Are these are these expenses different than the expenses

[1:42:33] that they're getting reimbured for here? Um actually so now that

[1:42:38] Yeah. So do you want that just to do you want me to update just that to 45 days?

[1:42:42] So it already says in here that expension revers form must be to

[1:42:48] the clerk's office. two weeks of the date of the expense.

[1:42:54] Well, you know what? There are items that have never been used. They've been

[1:42:57] in here for someone's reasoning that they needed

[1:43:02] it. I personally come with 30 days. Right

[1:43:06] now, it says two weeks. 45 days, but maybe change it to 30 days or 45 days.

[1:43:12] Okay. Either way, 30 days. 30 to 45 days.

[1:43:17] 45 days. We can't have I say 45. Monica says 45

[1:43:22] within 45 days of the date of the date of the Y. I'm assuming that would

[1:43:29] exclude the end of our fiscal year. Well, we already eliminated that. So

[1:43:34] that's correct. The expense happens on March 30th.

[1:43:42] You're not going to have you're not going to turn the date in the next day.

[1:43:45] No, but wouldn't you at least want a form to you saying I had an expense so

[1:43:50] we can account for it so that way we know it was a costly normally there's a

[1:43:56] month period that you're getting expenses right

[1:44:01] you would get you get expenses in April that get charged to the previous year oh

[1:44:07] you do okay I mean that happens okay all right we'll

[1:44:12] just leave so we're going now we're going back

[1:44:18] 45 days. 45 45 days. 45 days. And are we still going to page? Sorry. Page 35.

[1:44:26] Okay.

[1:44:29] Well, we finished line item 7.1. We should be at a Yes. bill listings,

[1:44:36] warrant reports. I like that basic

[1:44:52] Is 150 enough to marry for petty cash?

[1:45:00] Okay.

[1:45:11] 37. Page 38.

[1:45:15] This one we just changed to what the current practice is um in talking with

[1:45:20] Mary just that she provides the information to them.

[1:45:27] Shouldn't even say current practice the practice. This is the way it's

[1:45:34] page 39 that um the transfer authority that was

[1:45:42] worded for me to understand.

[1:45:53] Oh, unless when a transfer is made within a department. So if you're

[1:45:57] transferring money, sorry. Yes.

[1:46:03] So

[1:46:07] maybe unless instead of unless it could be accept except when transfer is made.

[1:46:20] Yes. And then the expenditure controls um just matches what the policy actually

[1:46:26] wrote from the fire department. Yeah. This is the fire department. So it's a

[1:46:30] little picture. I was a little confused on page 41. There's the

[1:46:36] quotes for general purp purchases. So, I felt like there was some redundancy or

[1:46:42] maybe I misunderstood something

[1:46:47] there. And then

[1:46:55] I have a question on page 40.

[1:47:01] We approved this policy and 40 page

[1:47:09] 40. What's the difference between a quote and a bid? So I almost feel like

[1:47:16] a bids it's something you do not well it's not in here.

[1:47:22] It says from purchase of 5 to 10,000

[1:47:30] must it doesn't actually specify

[1:47:38] but you're spelling it out. Aren't you a g? So the way it's written though

[1:47:45] purchases are 1,000 to 5,000. There's there's differences but to me we

[1:47:51] They could both say quotes for those two sections. It's a bid. I think like Chris

[1:47:57] said is more formal as far as advertising

[1:48:01] like a fire truck. It's semantics. I get it, but I feel like it's

[1:48:06] confusing. We could change it

[1:48:11] instead of saying bids we should call it. So it's consistent with the previous

[1:48:17] threshold with the other. more of a formal process. So yeah,

[1:48:22] person. So the five to 10 is a written quote.

[1:48:28] Okay.

[1:48:38] Yes, it is. I copy and paste. So then it says bids

[1:48:44] later in that same

[1:48:52] Do you need to have that in a separate meeting or can you approve that in this

[1:48:55] meeting?

[1:49:01] I guess because I think that we should also add

[1:49:08] everything.

[1:49:17] Yeah. And then there's 10 or more

[1:49:25] beyond should have different thresholds for us.

[1:49:29] Well, when we get to this kind

[1:49:37] one is one policy for everybody. I think Monica doesn't think so. No. So we

[1:49:41] should have that discussion for the township. We don't get the kind of money

[1:49:47] gets

[1:49:53] 10,000 because you have to do a seal bid with it. Those are just thresholds on

[1:49:58] how you purchase things. So the way this fire policy is

[1:50:09] between00 requires must be the supervisor for

[1:50:16] approval as well as either the township or the treasure prior to the purchase.

[1:50:22] And then purchases from 5 to 10. It still quotes but it requires board app.

[1:50:37] So really we're it's still requiring two

[1:50:44] and any of us can say you know what I want to go to the board I want to take

[1:50:47] the board that's going to be more of a unique thing of something that I look at

[1:50:51] that as it's not really an emergency but it's urgent and it falls in that

[1:50:55] threshold so yeah we can do it but most like Those things I would bring back

[1:50:59] anyways. So right now remember that was for a

[1:51:04] furnace that had to be

[1:51:09] that's what that was used for the way the policy

[1:51:18] reads $2500 which is really low.

[1:51:29] So is that all highlighted just get removed?

[1:51:32] Well 41 question.

[1:51:36] Yeah, I just highlighted it to show what descriptive. So to me if we want to kind

[1:51:41] of finish that discussion we have the general fund purchases

[1:51:47] but possibly because right now we have

[1:51:51] purchase thresholds. We can eliminate this whole section just to one. Yeah. So

[1:51:56] I can go I can highlight that whole section take out all the B here saying Y

[1:52:09] well do we again we put that in trying to solve

[1:52:14] some problem.

[1:52:20] So on page 40 it says over $10,000

[1:52:26] notice must be published in a newspaper at least five days prior to the final

[1:52:31] date of submitting.

[1:52:35] So I think that that should be changed to

[1:52:47] midnight including you know we have local newspaper. I was always the one

[1:52:52] posted on so I was

[1:52:59] put you guys think we should change this to say that and then five days is pretty

[1:53:04] short.

[1:53:13] Do you want it to say and or

[1:53:20] I think bid should be required. I think we should not use the term or the the

[1:53:25] company name because it's subject to change because it used to be municip.

[1:53:28] So I would just put

[1:53:33] soliciting all measures.

[1:53:40] How about all current allur bid platforms? Well,

[1:53:47] he's would something like the township utilized uh

[1:53:57] well the current just put that down if they change it

[1:54:00] we'll change the procedure the current platform

[1:54:05] and then if they change we'll change the procedure whatever the current platform

[1:54:08] is going to be utilizing yeah I think they

[1:54:12] need to use my experience they need to use depending on the

[1:54:18] not necessarily using the paper. So if it's

[1:54:23] uh you want to use the paper, but if it's to put up stadium lights, it's

[1:54:30] probably not maybe there's a contractor that's going to look in the voice.

[1:54:39] Yeah. So I would shy away from saying and maybe

[1:54:45] maybe

[1:54:48] I just put what's that I just put published I just must be published with

[1:54:53] how many days is there anything posted the paper though

[1:54:59] just well there are some there are some instances where you are required like

[1:55:05] yeah I mean you could put any

[1:55:10] and any required platforms

[1:55:14] required something like Yes, I know like for fire grants we had

[1:55:19] to put in the

[1:55:23] paper days

[1:55:35] 10 days.

[1:55:38] 10 business days. Yeah. 10 business days.

[1:55:54] Okay. So, so on

[1:56:01] I think so there's these exception. So any board member

[1:56:08] department so before above C Township board may authorize the

[1:56:13] execution of contract without competitor but I feel like that

[1:56:17] should potentially stay in

[1:56:23] somewhere at the end of the emergency page 40 because what it's saying is if

[1:56:30] it's a sole source it gives you example.

[1:56:43] Yeah, I know we have that

[1:56:47] Yeah, there is the

[1:56:57] emergency on page 42. Do you think we should be keeping

[1:57:07] Because then you would say seems like previously.

[1:57:13] What's that? I said seems like everything was fixed previously. So

[1:57:16] nothing should be broke.

[1:57:21] I I know I've run into this plenty of times where you got to say I get three

[1:57:25] quotes because the soul source provider using this and it's the only comes from

[1:57:30] this is the Michigan distributor for this product.

[1:57:35] So and and below that emergency section one thing I did note is that it's a

[1:57:39] working document and can be updated or amended. And the reason that I put that

[1:57:44] below this particular section is because of what you said. What do you say?

[1:57:48] Yeah. Just because things change so quickly with the environment, like

[1:57:54] thinking about the fire industry and how they have such big changes with their

[1:57:57] equipment right now, that would change how this works.

[1:58:04] But I'm

[1:58:12] reminding really intended for just the fire department. to change that. Oh

[1:58:17] yeah, the city fire chief.

[1:58:23] Mentions the fire department, fire chief. So who would be writing the

[1:58:26] report if you were doing the purchasing? Yeah. Under emergency purchasing, it

[1:58:31] actually spells out fire department fire department or citizens because it was a

[1:58:36] fire department. We should probably change that.

[1:58:40] So I could just take out the health safety or welfare of of the of the

[1:58:46] township or

[1:58:51] citizen detailed report shall be written by the

[1:58:55] or just get rid of that

[1:59:01] purchaser purchaser.

[1:59:15] may not work because

[1:59:19] we're the only who's authorized to make that purchase

[1:59:25] supervisor authority to temporary suspend

[1:59:30] but then it would also bever The delegates are right. So supervisor, fire

[1:59:35] chief or delegates.

[1:59:42] So I could leave it

[1:59:47] supervisor forward to the superallen.

[2:00:00] You could just say forward to

[2:00:13] it. All right. So, just to be clear on

[2:00:23] 41's

[2:00:26] direction right here. that whole section right

[2:00:33] but again did we decide do you guys think we should also remove

[2:00:39] the without competitive the exceptions that's 9 through

[2:00:46] 13 don't think we need any that's fine if you guys want to eliminate because it

[2:00:51] kinduses it that's fine would still come before approval so discussion

[2:00:59] all right So then there's that emergency purchases. Is that redundant as well?

[2:01:02] That's redundant as well. Take out C.

[2:01:07] I would think Jim based upon your in your It's a good question to bring up,

[2:01:12] but eliminating it cleans it up, makes it more simplified. However, it's a

[2:01:17] living document. If all of a sudden there was a a string of issues or

[2:01:24] concerns, I think then there would probably more than easy to bring board

[2:01:28] level to say, "Okay, we need to we need to revisit." Yeah. Anywhere in there,

[2:01:34] but somewhere in this particular area to to fix that problem. I think if you're

[2:01:38] taking this amount of time to go through this, I agree with you, it has to be

[2:01:41] used. So if you find that there's a problem, you should be

[2:01:52] purchasing there. If all of a sudden there was a string of issues, okay, hey,

[2:01:56] you know what? Next meeting we're going to bring this up and we're going to

[2:01:59] revisit the policy procedure manual because we had three instances where I

[2:02:05] don't think there was appropriate action and we we address it and we by going

[2:02:12] back and visiting this and changing that.

[2:02:19] All right. Anything else on

[2:02:23] 42? All right. What about

[2:02:29] 43 4?

[2:02:34] This one just calling out that for travel and reimbursement um for general

[2:02:38] fund and fire department they must receive preapproval for out of town

[2:02:42] travel that require an overnight stays.

[2:03:04] They're very those are important

[2:03:09] and the last person she'll check to see the coffee or coffee maker they all go

[2:03:15] off by themselves. Oh my gosh. This was totally

[2:03:24] working.

[2:03:31] This was totally attacking. That's what this whole paragraph was.

[2:03:36] Well, there was an employee that I know. I'm just saying this was a total

[2:03:41] This was both parties.

[2:03:46] All right. Changes. Um we did make some

[2:03:50] changes to the um property. So, just indicating that um all township

[2:03:59] employees will keep township property in a secure manner.

[2:04:03] Keys, alarm codes, phones, blah blah blah. Um, you'll read that all property

[2:04:08] um is dispensed by the supervisor and or designate. Once given to the employee,

[2:04:12] it's their responsibility. If it's m misplaced or stolen, we need to be

[2:04:16] notified immediately. A replacement may be issued. Didn't say shall because it's

[2:04:21] not a given. Um, as it relates to keys or alarm

[2:04:25] codes, if the supervisor has reason to believe that the key is um alarm code

[2:04:30] may have been used unauthorized, um, new locks, new codes can be

[2:04:37] implemented. Pretty standard stuff here. Um, okay. Township documents. So,

[2:04:45] we added some stuff in this section. So, um, that's the next page. Sorry. So, we

[2:04:50] added that all township employees will ensure that township documents are kept

[2:04:54] in a secure manner and that sensitive information will be kept confidential.

[2:04:58] Documents should never be left in locked or unlocked vehicles or out for the

[2:05:02] public view.

[2:05:05] Um, the one thing that we did learn yesterday is is we need to add

[2:05:10] authorized personnel onto our doors. So, that's something that we'll work on

[2:05:15] adding and it will every door Yes. Um what do you mean? Uh to the actual

[2:05:24] doors.

[2:05:28] Yes. Trouble by wanting. This is a common thing nowadays

[2:05:33] apparently. Yes. Because it's all public information. So unless we have it noted

[2:05:37] that it's authorized personnel. Yes.

[2:05:43] Just the office. If they do not people in their phones. Yeah.

[2:05:57] Yes. Um cyber security. So it is the responsibility of all township employees

[2:06:01] to ensure that their emails and electronic documents are stored in a

[2:06:04] compliant manner. Um making sure that passwords for email and other software

[2:06:08] are never shared and should be kept in a safe and secure place. Employees are

[2:06:12] cautious with their email and not clicking on something that they are

[2:06:15] unfamiliar with. And if they receive those emails, we're going to make sure

[2:06:18] that they know that they need to call the IT company immediately and the clerk

[2:06:22] or doesn't be notified immediately. Um, it's important that we make sure that

[2:06:28] all of our associates are updated on this just with the cyber security issues

[2:06:32] that are existing in the environment. Um, that's a tough one. Easy to write,

[2:06:38] but tough one. Well, there's a couple of things that are not in this document

[2:06:42] from a learning that we had yesterday. So, there was a

[2:06:46] um township, local township that was that they had a cyber attack and they

[2:06:50] were hacked and held ransom for I think she said three weeks. Um there is some

[2:06:54] education that we can implement for all of our employees including the fire

[2:06:58] department because they use the computers pretty frequently. Um

[2:07:02] and I have the name in my notes. Um it's a company that will send out like kind

[2:07:07] of fishing emails to us to to help us to test us and to educate us on it. The

[2:07:13] newest um scam that they were talking about, which I've experienced in work,

[2:07:17] is um you'll receive a voicemail to your to your email and you'll say you've

[2:07:23] received a voicemail and it's not. It's actually it's a way in. Um but one thing

[2:07:29] we'll be talking about in light of this is making sure our cyber security is up

[2:07:32] to date, making sure we have the multiffactor authentication. That's what

[2:07:36] I meant by they're tricky. So it's easy to get

[2:07:43] I was like, "Oh, did you send me an email?" Don't open that. That's not for

[2:07:48] me. Well, the Google shared do or the um Outlook shared documents. So, it's

[2:07:54] making sure that when you receive that email that the extension on the email is

[2:07:58] accurate. So, I people get emails from me all the time. Lori wants to update

[2:08:02] this was one that the township had that was talking. We would like to update

[2:08:06] your direct deposit. They got the person got a phone call. Hi, Susie. This is

[2:08:11] Mary calling from um from Arita Township wanting to update your direct deposit

[2:08:16] information. Just want to verify your bank account number. Thankfully, the

[2:08:20] person knew that you like that role would never call them, but we need to do

[2:08:25] a good job of educating all of our employees that that's not something,

[2:08:36] right? Most of the townships are moving to like an like you have a process, you

[2:08:40] follow your process. That's not even in here, but we'll get there. Um, so term

[2:08:45] end, this was added. You guys, you tell me if you'd like it. Just that um upon

[2:08:50] the end of of your term or the end of employment, whether voluntary or

[2:08:54] involuntary, a proper handoff is to occur occur when appropriate. Emails and

[2:08:59] documents are property of the township and are not to be destroyed or deleted

[2:09:03] during this period. No documents are to be copied or shared with self or anyone

[2:09:09] outside of the standing employees or incumbents.

[2:09:14] So I have a question just about that. For example, using my iPad that the

[2:09:20] township one. Yes. It only keeps so many emails and then it

[2:09:25] just automatically deletes them but they're

[2:09:29] not there. That was me. It might be archiving. So, but it's still backed up

[2:09:33] though through it. So, they're always there. I'm just

[2:09:38] saying that on the settings I've tried to go through because I've noticed them

[2:09:40] like a second. I've only got stuff for like three weeks. Yeah. But they're I

[2:09:46] haven't deleted them. I'm just asking though that they're obviously backed up.

[2:09:49] Yeah. Through there. And it's just a matter of what it shows. We're going to

[2:09:53] schedule a meeting with the IT company to talk about what their backup process

[2:09:56] is. So, we'll verify that. But for sure, um But I do think it is backed up

[2:10:02] because we backed up some Oops. I'm pretty sure. Um, and then just put in

[2:10:08] there that, you know, violation of the above code could result in litigation

[2:10:13] because I don't even know if that needs to be called out, but just wanted you to

[2:10:17] know that. All right, next page.

[2:10:22] Um, well, we removed the long distance phone calls.

[2:10:27] [Music] Um, oh my goodness. And

[2:10:33] um, we removed the uh, computer

[2:10:40] policy here. So, we might have a separate computer policy, but we don't

[2:10:44] need And then, um, the emergency repairs fall

[2:10:49] into the other category. So, we're all set there.

[2:10:55] All right. questions on page

[2:11:01] 48. Okay. And then what about 49? So positions on the Z board appeals are

[2:11:09] recommended by the town supervisor planning commission are

[2:11:13] appointed by the township super. So recently the attorney clarified that

[2:11:17] anybody on the township board could recommend somebody for the ZVA.

[2:11:26] So heard you saying that you want to change. So only the supervisor. No,

[2:11:31] that's why it uses recommended basically it's the process that the supervisor

[2:11:35] recommends it. Bring it to the board. You guys say no, we want this guy. Then

[2:11:38] it's a conversation. It basically just starts the process of who's going to be

[2:11:41] the other one is actually the planning commission is actually appointed by

[2:11:46] approval. I just think that that should we're looking to reiterate

[2:11:51] the law. I guess I would It should say or recommended by a township board

[2:11:58] member and appointed by the board of trustees. That's how I would

[2:12:04] even like practice to be the supervisor makes the recommendation. I think

[2:12:09] legally anybody should say that this is just basically put something in there

[2:12:14] how the process starts and I say I want you know so John to do it and everyone

[2:12:19] says no and then you say well I want Bob to do it and everyone says yeah. So even

[2:12:23] like technically even the planning commission I appointed but it still Oh

[2:12:26] yeah that's that's what it says oh so it says appointed there so that

[2:12:32] might be incorrect too then I I appoint them but you have to prove it so as to

[2:12:36] prove it yes so I I think that it should say recommended by for this

[2:12:45] for recommended by the township board member

[2:12:50] and approved by the board of trustes And then the next one should be

[2:12:55] planning recommended by the time of supervisor approved or appointed. Maybe

[2:13:01] you want to call it point but the languages are

[2:13:04] consistent. Do you want me to double check with her because I wrote what she

[2:13:08] said when she was here. I'm pretty sure it was in the minutes but I I can double

[2:13:13] check. Bob Bob was here when him. That's him. Do you want me to just

[2:13:19] double check? Double check. I don't think that's I think that should be I

[2:13:23] have the MTA book too. It actually spells out. Yeah, I thought that's where

[2:13:27] I but I'll double check it for sure. It's in green highlighted. Um I just

[2:13:32] didn't the dates that's just for me because we have to decide when this is

[2:13:36] approved and then obviously uh just the acknowledgement. So people will

[2:13:41] acknowledge this. We'll make sure that people get it. If there are any changes

[2:13:45] then they will be resent out. And then the um only change that will on the

[2:13:50] organizational chart is making sure that we're adding in the bookkeeper and

[2:13:55] making sure we're including the right position. So, making sure that that's

[2:13:59] all corrected. Oh, look at that. Jim, you and I are left out.

[2:14:03] You're just Would you like some I'm just saying there's no other sub

[2:14:09] lines below us. So, we're the one where we're under township. No.

[2:14:22] I will happily share two trustees.

[2:14:27] Um, one thing I would really like to do is if you go back on page 15 and it's

[2:14:31] because, you know, we have employees in place now under a the time off request.

[2:14:35] If we'd agreed to that language, I would like to see if we could possibly make

[2:14:39] that active too. Yes. Just because we have these employees now for a few

[2:14:43] months now. And so, we really need to make it active in line with the Well,

[2:14:50] that part. Yeah. Just just a everything under a of a take us that long to bring

[2:14:56] this back to actually the the verbiage is we agreed. We

[2:15:02] changed the verbiage before we needed it, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, making sure

[2:15:05] that um that they this would be the acknowledgement that they do have a

[2:15:09] combined time off bank that is for their vacation and their ESTA time and we will

[2:15:15] have a tracking mechanism because they have to request the time off. So the

[2:15:18] approval of just that uh that section with the law and the fact that so we can

[2:15:24] say to them hey we can have some time off

[2:15:32] request

[2:15:36] support.

[2:15:42] Yes.

[2:15:46] Yes. And I should have asked this for but the

[2:15:50] only change we had in there was the clarification of it's based on their

[2:15:55] which really they haven't acred enough any vacation in anyway. So one of the

[2:16:00] things that's in here that I realized I didn't say out loud and it's in here is

[2:16:04] that they will be given this time in two increments during that first year. So

[2:16:09] it's not like this week we're going to be frontloading their bank with two

[2:16:13] weeks of vacation time and as they're going to be given it two increments. So,

[2:16:18] one will come in April, one will come in November. So, I may have missed. So,

[2:16:23] they don't have one year of service in yet. So, you're saying the intention is

[2:16:27] they actually they're going to receive vacation time now even though they're

[2:16:32] not here for a year. Yes. So, so it's a PTO. It should be clear. Am I the only

[2:16:38] one that misunderstood that? Oh, you're thinking it should be zero year zero,

[2:16:42] right? Yes. So, it is the intent that in that first year they would given

[2:16:46] vacation time. I can tell you dissatisf

[2:17:04] um I don't think that you're wrong with what you're saying. I would tell you

[2:17:08] that I think again that from all my years of being in business and what I

[2:17:12] learned from where I was at before to where I'm at now, you have learn. You

[2:17:16] have had to learn to adapt and change things

[2:17:20] to I say be a part of the new generation. There's things that I still

[2:17:24] don't like that I I disagree that I butt heads with, but you know what? I don't

[2:17:29] want to retrain somebody maybe

[2:17:33] clarify some sort of a clarification on what first year service mean. So I can

[2:17:38] just put years of service zero to zero to to three. So that way that way you

[2:17:43] know it's 0 to three from the beginning you'll be given this time. Um

[2:17:50] if somebody started now and and had a wedding in July they could utilize it

[2:17:54] right and coming here they're knowing that they're that they have that

[2:17:58] opportunity to have it effective immediately. That to me is more of a

[2:18:02] perk of like you know what I like that I don't have to be there a year. if they

[2:18:07] you know what that's the gamble that if you do do that and all of a sudden they

[2:18:10] take that and they quit in August okay we didn't get a year out of them but you

[2:18:15] know what we may have learned something about when we interview the next person

[2:18:19] that comes in there or they were just that type of an employee that did what

[2:18:23] they did and again nice thing is we're not back filling so there's you know

[2:18:27] that cost of overtime cost and it really does come down to the

[2:18:33] accountability piece you know I can't stress that

[2:18:36] when it when when you have whether it's just the few associates that we have or

[2:18:41] even us that are appointed there is an expectation that you're holding us

[2:18:46] accountable to the work that we're doing and if you're not doing that that will

[2:18:49] be when you see these things are abused um that accountability piece and I I

[2:18:55] can't stress it enough because sometimes people think that they don't want to

[2:18:58] hold people accountable because it's more punitive in nature but when you

[2:19:02] don't hold people accountable the ones that are naturally accountable see it

[2:19:07] like as punitive to them like hey I'm doing my job and you're not you're not

[2:19:10] holding this person accountable so luckily we'll hopefully have a lot of

[2:19:15] selfacountability so you think this is something we can

[2:19:17] have updated for the May meeting yes okay we'll bring the May meeting for

[2:19:22] updates and kind of go over it and see where we're at with that okay so we're

[2:19:27] done with that in that

[2:19:31] reg you um just highlight changes we're making today and accept all the other

[2:19:39] change the changes that are on here now. So we'll just see the changes. Yeah, I

[2:19:43] put everything in green that we changed today. So I'll go through I'll accept

[2:19:47] everything else. I'll make sure that the um table of contents is updated. Make

[2:19:51] sure that the organizational chart is updated. And then also to run the few

[2:19:57] things by the attorney that we need to run by. Make sure we're not missing

[2:20:01] anything. Um And then can I say that one of the things that would be really great

[2:20:06] with this policy and procedure is that eventually I couldn't do it with this

[2:20:10] time around, but I mean I'm going to be honest really what I'd like to do is

[2:20:13] throw the whole thing out and written the whole thing over again. But I knew

[2:20:15] that that would have been a much longer me. Um what I'd like to see is that we

[2:20:20] go to individualized policies. So it's not in a per se manual. Some of this

[2:20:24] stuff will be, but an actual policy book that has individual numbered policies

[2:20:31] that you can flip to and say, "Okay, this is the PTO policy. This is this

[2:20:36] policy," but not in a document that's 51 pages, if that makes sense. Because I

[2:20:43] feel like it's very hard as an employee. It It's much easier when it's you only

[2:20:47] want to reference one document and I have to pull out this whole thing. I can

[2:20:50] just pull out that one polic and say, "Here's our polic. That's what we see

[2:20:54] from the other townships when you call a lot of times they have a one pager. For

[2:20:58] some reason we have a whole package.

[2:21:03] Yeah.

[2:21:07] Right. So I think if as we as you move forward in the years we'll just slowly

[2:21:13] pull things out, make it individualized and skinny.

[2:21:17] Yes.

[2:21:26] It was a petty book.

[2:21:32] I know there was some things that we didn't

[2:21:39] want to think in that sense. But I know what

[2:21:46] you're saying. Yeah. I don't mean it like that. You I say that the majority

[2:21:49] you can literally go line item by line item almost outside of the normal

[2:21:53] business stuff and really see where it was any industry. It's that there's

[2:22:00] always a policy that's there's a rule for reason because someone's name is

[2:22:03] behind it somewhere. It's true.

[2:22:10] Okay. Uh any comments board members? Lori, thank you very very much. Thank

[2:22:15] you. I need a motion to second. Go ahead. I'll second that. 9:22 Mary.

[2:22:24] Yeah. Way to go, Chris. You told me. All in favor? All in favor? I I

Armada Township Special Board Meeting 4.22.25

Transcript