Waterford

Village moves to shut revolving door in the clerk’s office

By Patricia Bogumil

Editor

and Dave Fidlin

Correspondent

The Waterford Village Board approved changes to staff positions April 22, after considering recommendations from the Personnel Committee, which met April 15 and April 22 to consider the issues.

Three new positions have been set up as a result of recent redefinitions made to the administrative duties for the deputy clerk/treasurer and court clerk and utility/DPW positions.

Monday night, the Village Board approved a pay range of $15-$18 per hour for the redefined Deputy Clerk/Treasurer and Court Clerk position.

The Utility/DPW Clerk position is approved at $14-$17 per hour.

An Administrative Analyst position is approved at $12-$15 per hour.

The new positions are effective immediately and will be filled upon proper publication, review of submitted applications and candidate interviews.

Rachel Ladewig, who has been serving as deputy clerk/treasurer/court clerk was offered the new redefined position. She said Tuesday that she intends to accept it.

Alicia Schrader, who has been working as an administrative assistant, recently notified the village that she will not be staying on but instead intends to honor a commitment she previously made to another employer.

Melanie Marzahl has been interning as an assistant in the clerk’s office. Her internship is set to expire May 31.

 

A week earlier

On April 15, village Personnel Committee members spent nearly two hours discussing staffing-related issues at the village hall, in particular the issue of reconfiguring two existing positions into three and spreading out duties within a department that has become overtaxed.

Village Clerk Vikki Zuehlke and Village Treasurer Lori Peternell came before committee members April 15 with a two-pronged request to increase staffing and also bump up pay in an effort to retain support staff.

Peternell expressed frustration with ongoing turnover within the department. While she and Zuehlke have held their positions for an extended period, there has been turnover at the support level.

“We’re in a crisis situation with staffing,” Peternell said. “I’m exhausted. I would love to get back to working 40 hours each week.”

It was noted that support staff within the clerk-treasurer’s office consists of Ladewig, working as deputy clerk/treasurer/court clerk and Schrader, working as an administrative assistant. Marzahl, an intern, has been assisting the department as well.

Peternell, Zuehlke and Ewald all praised the current support staff within the office. Ladewig and Schrader each assumed their positions less than six months ago, and Marzahl’s internship is set to wrap up next month.

“All five of us work very well together, and that’s important,” Peternell said.

While their first request was not met with much resistance, the more thorny issue of dollars and cents resulted in a robust discussion April 15.

Officials aired a variety of opinions, and frustrations at times mounted as the discussion moved along.

In the end, the committee reached a compromise and unanimously agreed to forward on a recommendation of paying the most top-level support position a pay range of $15.56 and $16 per hour.

That was subsequently approved at a $15-$18 per hour range by the village board Monday night.

In addition to creating a new administrative analyst position, the two existing positions would result in pay bumps of $1 to $1.50 per hour, based on the committee’s recommendation.

Village President Tom Roanhouse, who serves on the committee, agreed to move forward with their recommendations, but expressed concerns about the idea of bumping up pay in the midst of a budget that has already been approved by the board.

“This is something that should be taken up during budget time,” Roanhouse said. “That’s how government works.”

Jerry Filut, who chairs the committee, agreed with Roanhouse, but said he also would like more consistency and tenure within the department.

“I do think the time for the revolving door has to stop,” Filut said. “It’s not good for anyone.”

Comments are closed.