Sick Leave Buy Backs & Comments

Those who have commented on Sick Leave Buy Back have missed a number of significant issues.

1. The Empty-Prize printed an editorial that criticized Plymouth County because of the editor's concealed agenda. Very little local reporting is accomplished by the consortium that owns the Empty-Prize and in essence, it's a wasteland.

On Wednesday, one single article appeared about the Monday BOS meeting and failed to report significant issues. Rather, the Empty-Prize chose to focus on the Regional Task Force and SRPEDD, its targets. Instead of news and factual reporting, the Empty-Prize has presented its favorite targets.

2. The Empty-Prize reported about a single Plymouth Country employee who 'ran out' her sick days. That editorial comment wouldn't be problematic if it represented fair and accurate reporting of the same issue in other towns or specifically Middleboro.

The 11/5 STM in Middleboro approved + $85,000 in sick leave buyback, and additional was voted on at the ATM.

One of those employees approved for sick leave buyback at the 11/5 STM was deceased.

Did anyone question or notice, least of all the Empty-Prize?

While it's sad that the Town lost an employee, what private sector employer offers that perc?

And for that matter, what private sector employer offers sick pay packages to salaried employees?

What private sector employer doesn't require medical documentation?

What private sector employer fails to record sick days, as Middleboro has not?

3. To clarify for all who believe or have been circulating mis-information: Town Meeting has a right to 'fund' or approve CONTRACTS.

If Town Meeting refuses to FUND a union contract at its inception, it's back to the Bargaining Table.

It can't be challenged in court. Some may recall that there was a Town that refused to fund a new Police contract last year and the Union accepted Town Meeting vote without a court challenge.

And at one of the BOS Meetings, I specifically asked the question to compel the Chairwoman to make the comment, on the record, that ALL union contracts will contain the provision 'SUBJECT TO TOWN MEETING APPROVAL.'

Since the Chairwoman seems to have periodic memory lapses and frequently misstates information as it's convenient, one needs to watch carefully, but it should also be noted that the Town Accountant's contract failed to include that wording.

As a footnote: the reason the 36% pay raise for the Selectmen's Secretary could not be voided is because it occurred in the 2nd year of a 3 year contract, increasing her pay to $68,000 per year or equivalent to a department head who supervises employees, manages a department, and has specialized training.