Personnel Review Board - Minutes - 05/18/2023

Personnel Review Board
Meeting Minutes
May 18, 2023 >
Page 1 -l = fa
Present: Stephane Browder x = aa
Krum Chuchev g NS z=
Talivaldis Maidelis = N BS
Kathleen Mullen-Kohl jae D> oR
Absent: Rik Wells, Chairman R @ AQ
on 2
m. 2
Also Present: Christine Walters, Director of Human Resources; Dani Gorman, Human Services
Administrator arrived at 6:21pm.
Mr. Maidelis called the May 18, 2023 Personnel Review Board Meeting to order at 6:00pm.
1. Review_and_ approval of the Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2023 and the Special
Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2023
MOTION: Ms. Mullen-Kohl made a Motion to approve the March 16, 2023 Meeting Minutes of
the Personnel Review Board. Seconded by Ms. Browder. (4-0) Unanimous.
MOTION: Mr. Chuchev made a Motion to approve the March 21, 2023 Special Meeting Minutes
of the Personnel Review Board. Seconded by Ms. Mullen-Kohl. (4-0) Unanimous.
2. Public Comment
None.
3s Job Description: Fire Marshal — Fire Services
Ms. Walters spoke on this job description being last updated in 2001; the current Fire Marshal is
retiring next month after serving the Town for 38 years; it is proposed this position move from
being the lone position on the Public Safety Wage Schedule to the Non-Union Management
Professional (NUMP) Wage Schedule on the MP-3A classification; Ms. Walters provided Board
members with a current Fire Marshal salary survey of area towns which shows placement on the
MP-3A classification is in line with area towns; the job description was reviewed by the Director
of Fire Services and updated to more accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of the
position; clerical amendments recommended by Board members.
MOTION: Mr. Chuchev made a Motion to approve the Fire Marshal job description on the MP-
3A classification on the NUMP Wage Schedule with the clerical amendments discussed.
Seconded by Ms. Mullen-Kohl. (4-0) Unanimous.
4. Job Description: Administrative & Intake Specialist — Youth & Family Services
Ms. Walters stated Dani Gorman, the Human Services Administrator, requested the name change
to more accurately reflect the duties of this position; the position remains on the Non-Union AS
Schedule, Grade 7; clerical amendments recommended by Board members.
MOTION: Mr. Chuchev made a Motion to approve the Administrative & Intake Specialist job
description with the clerical amendments discussed. Seconded by Ms. Browder. (4-0) Unanimous.
5. Child Abuse Prevention Policy
Ms. Walters stated this draft policy came about as a result of Traveler’s, the Town’s insurance
carrier, recommending the Town create and implement formal written guidelines and procedures
that address abuse and molestation prevention as the Town engages in many children’s programs

Personnel Review Board
Meeting Minutes
May 18, 2023
Page 2
throughout the year; she provided the Board with recommendations from Traveler’s as to what
should be included in the policy; Mr. Chuchev provided a written statement on his thoughts of the
draft policy which are included in the Minutes as Attachment A. Ms. Browder, a retired employee
from the State of Connecticut, Department of Children & Family Services, spoke on this draft
policy and stated the State of CT already has existing policies to cover this topic and the
towns/municipalities within the State all fall under the State policy; is there a need for the Town
to create their own policy; she felt, and Board members agree, that this draft policy is much too
rigid and does not allow for nurturing children as they grow through these programs; boundaries
and examples of behaviors can be helpful for training purposes but they don’t necessarily need to
be policy; discussion continued on the training already in existence and Ms. Gorman agreed to
share with Board Members the policy in place at Youth & Family Services. Ms. Browder offered
to assist in any way in amending this draft policy presented.
MOTION: Ms. Browder made a Motion to TABLE the Child Abuse Prevention Policy to a later
date. Seconded by Ms. Mullen-Kohl. (4-0) Unanimous.
MOTION: Mr. Chuchev made a Motion to adjourn the Personnel Review Board Meeting of May
18, 2023 at 6:53pm. Seconded by Ms. Mullen-Kohl. (4-0) Unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jae <. ALAS
Joan S. Barnes
Recording Secretary

ATTACHMENT A
Good morning,
In preparation for the PRB meeting on May 18th, I'd like to bring to your attention some
issues regarding the last item on the agenda, dealing with the proposed child abuse
prevention policy. In particular, | am deeply concerned about the overreaching of such a
policy, and its long term impact, going beyond the intended shielding of the town of
Waterford from legal liability. Risk can never be eliminated, only managed. Risk
management necessitates keen knowledge about the costs, both short and long term.
1. "Travelers, the Town's insurance carrier, recommended .. ." Travelers is not a part of
the legislative body of Connecticut, it is not in the chain of command, and it should not be
allowed to dictate or "suggest" town policy. In the last decade, there has been a growing
number of examples where private companies have been used to short-circuit the
legislative process and cause de facto changes of the law, when such changes might have
been rejected by the voters. We should not allow to be used as a conduit for such a
circumvention of the democratic (electoral) process, regardless of whether or not we
believe that the change is "for the good."
2. The policy itself has at least the following issues:
A. It is so Draconian, that it outlaws hugs, jokes, greeting cards, offering a ride when in a
pinch, and roughhousing. Ask yourselves: how should | act if | have to reliably comply with
this policy on a day to day basis? The answer would be "act like a robot." As a parent, |
don't believe that my child would benefit from a sterile, robotic, environment.
B. Itis so broad, that it endangers all adult participants by subjecting them to liability, both
legal and in terms of public image/reputation. When the standard is "making somebody
feel uncomfortable," the chances that good intentions be occasionally misinterpreted
becomes very high. As a result, the correct strategy, for an individual, would be to
minimize all contract with children.
C. It is so broad that it exposes the town to liability for violating its own policy in the
future. The town is afraid that in a future lawsuit, the plaintiff's attorneys will use the
absence of a "child protection policy" as evidence of lax standards, and thus liability.
However, for any policy that is more overreaching the the laws of Connecticut, the same
attorneys will use its text to point out behavior of Waterford employees and claim that it
violated the policy and therefore demonstrates liability.
D. It discourages humane behavior. Many people have the tendency to show compassion
and offer help when it seems to be needed. For a troubled child form a dysfunctional
household, that extra time or a hug may be the last "life line" that kept said child from
falling apart. Good and compassionate people are everywhere. There can never be
enough good "licensed therapists" to reliably outsource the care of our children to them.

E. It promotes dysfunction. As it was said very recently, "we have a town to run." We have
limited resources that have alternative competing uses. A sign of dysfunction is when easy
situations are made difficult, and difficult situations are made impossible. As a parent, if my
car broke or | had an emergency that would prevent me from picking up my son on time
from an activity, a common sense thing would be to ask that somebody give him a ride
home. Under the current policy, this would be impossible.
F. It provides plenty of room for mistaken or unscrupulous individuals to press
unsubstantiated charges with little or no consequences.
G. Connecticut law already has extensive provisions about child abuse and safety. Any
increase of the already existing burden is unwelcome until the legislature decides that such
a burden is so necessary that it justifies the costs and consequences.
For these reasons, | cannot support this policy in good faith. My recommendation would be
to politely tell Travelers that for time being, the Town of Waterford would follow
Connecticut law, as we have to do anyways. In addition, I'd recommend reaching out to
our state representatives and asking them to review our current statutes and
remove/correct overly broad and onerous provisions that raise concerns similar to those in
points A-F, supra.
Sincerely,
Krum Chuchev