Win-win. And one miss.
Updated: lots of people want to know the salary and perks, so it’s stuck on the end. My interest was more in correcting badly written parts of the last contract, and that appears mostly to have happened.
When looking over the contract for former Village Manager Pavlicek three lacking items stuck out like a sore thumb: lack of a time frame, lack of required performance reviews, and lack of a Prehire Arbitration Agreement.
The one miss in this new contract: there’s still no Prehire Arbitration Agreement. Arbitration of discharge, as predicated by a PAA, can conclude inside of a year, and since time consuming discovery and motion practice is not generally permitted, it ends up being less expensive than a court trial. A PAA is protection for the village against, say, a lengthy lawsuit that runs up the legal bills for everyone involved.
On the plus side, there’s a definite length to the contract. On the plus side, there’s a definite 2 1/2 year length to the contract, and that can mitigate the need for a PAA (hat tip for the heads up on that to Mayor Ron, he’s right):
Additionally, Annual Performance Reviews will be part of the terms of the contract. As part of an employees personnel file, I’m pretty sure PR’s are not part of the public record, but this is important, as it creates a paper trail of job performance that future councils with a different consist can rely on, if needed.
Any pay raises are tied to the Annual Performance Evaluation, market factors, and whatever else council decides. This is a major improvement over the last contract. Under the old contract council could grant a raise anytime they decided to. Under the new contract, once a year the process can be visited, and there is considerably more latitude given council, there is no longer a contract specifying a direct linkage to automatic minimum increases based on average total non-union village pay increases.
So the Village has written a much better contract this time out.
Public salaries are subjest to public exposure:
In addition to the usual comprehensive health insurance benefits (always a perk of public employment, don’t single out Fieldman if you feel it’s too much) and sick leave, Fieldman gets a vehicle allowance (also pretty standard):
The only questionable item in the contract, and this may be simply that I don’t understand it, is the ability to award bonuses at the discretion of the employer:
Is it a potential loophole to the annual performance review/pay review process established earlier in the same section? Maybe. I don’t see council throwing money around frivolously, as the next couple budgets will be tight fitting expenses into revenues.
And this is pretty weird:
That could be taken to mean the Village Attorney is also an employer. She’s not. Instead of “And also:” it should have read “And it’s legal representative:”, with a different indent or something along those lines to clearly delineate that the Village Attorney is not “also” an employer of the Village Manager.
I’ve had first hand experience highlighting and correcting legal wording gaffes in the past. Most recently the language appointing VA Petrarca as Ethics Officer was screwed up in a self contradicting manner that Commissioner Tully was good enough to bring up to the dais, point out, and change.
Still, a much better contract than the last one. You can read the whole Village Manager Contract here.