Tensions flare during hearing on human resource job in North Smithfield

Personnel Board Secretary Suzanne Bernier looked at councilors after she was interrupted while reading a statement that went over the three minute limit.

NORTH SMITHFIELD – A council majority effort to add a human resource manager to the ranks of Town Hall staff led to tense debate among officials at a hearing on Monday, May 6.

Town Administrator Paul Zwolenski described the position as planned as, “problematic,” pointing in part to the duplications of duties already listed in the job description of the town’s benefits and payroll coordinator – a role currently held by Karen Bernadino.

“What we have in front of us is a problem – a situation that’s wrought with problems,” Zwolenski said during discussion of the potential ordinance change and job description on Monday.

Zwolenski was not alone in expressing opposition to the proposal. Council members have been split on the issue since it was first discussed as part of budget deliberations last June, with Councilors John Beauregard and Clare O’Hara casting votes against funding $35,000 for the job. Personnel Board Secretary Suzanne Bernier had also previously discussed her group’s concerns, and questioned the effort again on Monday.

“The town has the good fortune of employing a certified human resource professional, whose knowledge and commitment are equally strong,” said Bernier, reading a prepared statement on behalf of the town’s Personnel Board members.

Council President Kimberly Alves had noted in advance that individuals would be given just three minutes each to speak during Monday’s hearing, and swung her gavel when Bernier ignored the time limit, continuing to deliver the statement from her town board. Alves then asked Bernier if should could finish up and the personnel board secretary put away her statement, speaking quickly.

“A single hiring position can impact the entire community,” Bernier said.

The Budget Committee also recommended cutting the position from the fiscal plan for 2025, after recommending the staff addition last year.

“As of May 2024, a director has not been hired. We now question whether this expenditure is necessary,” noted the committee presentation delivered this week. “We believe that the $35,000 amount would be better allocated to budgeting software as requested by the finance department, and we recommend an additional $23,998.52 be spent on a finance “floating” or part time position to aid the department and perform tasks in Town Hall, such as covering lunches in the tax collection’s office.”

Resident Michael Clifford, meanwhile, spoke in favor of the move.

“The money that we’ve been spending in settlements, I don’t understand why everybody isn’t screaming for some type of monitoring to go in place here,” said Clifford, referencing, in part, a recent agreement to settle a discrimination suit against the North Smithfield Police Department that cost the town some $400,000. “I think it’s badly needed, and I think it will long run save some money with settlements.”

Beauregard said that while he’s come around to the idea of creating the job, he disagrees with the current plan for how it will be executed. Current language calls for creation of a part-time, non-union manager who reports to the finance director and, “generally,” to the town administrator. Beauregard said that an independent firm or consultant might be a better fit for the role.

“I don’t think a part time position is the way to go,” he said Monday. Of a firm, he added, “Somebody can go to them if needed 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

Alves said that a manager could also be called in as needed whenever a problem occurs, and added that the position could become full time in the future.

“We’re talking about part time right now just to get this going,” Alves said.

Hamilton defended the job description and noted the importance of the role.

“It’s a pretty comprehensive list of responsibilities that have to do with federal, state and local ordinances,” Hamilton said.

Councilor Douglas Osier suggested the town might be able to split costs for the individual by sharing with a neighboring community. He also said he believes the role should not fall under finance, and that the ordinance could leave out language that designates it as part time, in case it changes in the future.

“I think how this flushes out can still be decided, but I think the first step is in getting this approved,” Osier said.

Beauregard noted that the individual will also answer to the town administrator, and asked if Zwolenski could weigh in.

The administrator said that it was the first time he’d been brought into conversation.

“Not once was I asked to weigh in on this,” Zwolenski said, adding the the proposed job is already being done well by current Town Hall staff. “I’m not in favor of it. This is going to be problematic. Be careful.”

Alves responded that one important reason for the change is that human resource duties should be performed by a non-union employee, which is not the current arrangement.

“I would think you would welcome this,” she said to Zwolenski.

The administrator said that in the past, Alves supported the town’s current use of a benefits and payroll coordinator for HR duties.

“Now, you’re looking to change it and take this person out of this position,” he said. Of Bernier, he added, “You owe her an apology for gaveling her.”

“I’m not taking anyone out of a position,” Alves replied.

“You are,” said Zwolenski.

“No, I’m not,” said Alves. “I really don’t think you should be putting that out there because no position is being taken away at all.”

Hamilton described the new job as an additional resource.

“What we’re trying to do is help you and your departments,” she said to Zwolenski.

Beauregard said he liked Osier’s idea of sharing the hire with another town.

“I just don’t know the kind of person you’re going to get for $35,000 a year,” he said.

Councilors ultimately voted to continue the public hearing and a second reading of the town ordinance change to Monday, June 3.

“We have to start somewhere,” said Alves. “I’m sure it’s going to grow because it’s a position that’s needed.”

Editor’s note: The above article has been edited to accurately reflect comments delivered by Suzanne Bernier and include comments from the Budget Committee.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Oh hi there 👋
It’s nice to meet you.

Sign up to receive awesome content in your inbox, every week.

We don’t spam!


  1. The town council president has the right to uphold the time limit, set by an agreement from a suggestion by O’Hara that there be a time limit, Beauregard’s motion 6 months prior to O’Hara’s being accepted, did not pass. Could they have asked a bit nicer, other than the “… are you done?” Yes, but does not violate code of conduct. You may ask did it violate under professionalism? Walked the line a bit, but overall gave the answer of no. With that no violation decision, comes the possibility of a violation, showing bias towards individuals, as they have allowed other members to surpass the three minute time limit many times since the adoption of the rule, as Zwolenski had pointed out.
    A suggestion for the time limit rule, apply it evenly across the meeting to everyone involved, so it shows no bias and can’t be construed that way. If implemented in applying the 3 minute rule across to everyone, I suggest 5 minute time limit for each item to include each agenda item. This would allow the meetings to be shorter, as it was the reason for O’Hara to put forward the agenda in the first place. This is how other places of government do these types of meetings, since people want to keep comparing our town to other places. There’s also another option, just getting rid of the time limit involved and allow everyone to speak unlimited. I personally would like to see option two, but would be okay of option one.

    Osier did frequently jump in on a conversation, and I’m unsure if the other speaker was done talking or not. My suggestion for them is to wait a little bit longer before adding their view, but I understand the need for urgency to voice their concern.

    The notes have been provided.

  2. O’Hara, while their facial expressions and eye rolling can be included with insubordination under the undermining authority and public humiliation portion of the code of conduct. I did not find anything wrong with it, as it has been allowed for however many years now, and is set as precedence for them. I do highly suggest that they fix their emotional outrage via facial expressions, as to not be in violation of the code of conduct in the future, and not allow it anymore.

    For Beauregard, only one fault on the night from what I could see, the earning their keep remark. They did hold their emotions in check during the human resources portion, when other people did not. Usually, they tend to jump in with them and attack on the subject. I would like to thank them for suggesting a firm for hr issues, not the route I would go as I personally like to see a person and don’t want people to hear phone conversations if it could cause potential litigation.

    As for Zwolenski, each offensive language offense, could be considered insubordination as he did this to people higher ranking than him. That’s according to the hierarchy of the town, which is on the website. I would have done both if it happened to me, other human resource places I have talked to in the past are 50/50 on that subject. Some want to include it all in one, some want as much paper as possible.

  3. Offense 10: St. Onge – 100min – strong armed us – offensive language. The solicitor was quick to correct them, to avoid a lawsuit.

    And there you have it, the 10 offenses that someone requested. As you can see, I didn’t need to finish the meeting to get 10. I do have notes for each member, that’ll be posted tomorrow.

    Some of the responses here are very telling that people don’t understand how to work in a corporate world, or understand how respect for others will prevent a toxic work environment. Everyone should definitely go to a yearly refresher course, even if you have done nothing wrong, as to be on the look out for the early warning signs and prevent it from getting worse. The more people who say that behavior isn’t tolerated here, the less likely of another lawsuit. It should be part of having of job 101, yet here we are.

  4. Offense 8: Zwolenski – 82min – Be quiet – offensive language – respect. They did remind an individual of the rules of a meeting, but did it the wrong way, also wasn’t their meeting to control.
    Offense 9: Zwolenski – 82min – Buzzing of flies – offensive language – derogatory.

    Continuation of letting their emotions get the better of them. You can’t verbally assault the crowd.

  5. Offense 6: Zwolenski – 81min – Demanding an apology/publicly discrediting TC President – insubordination – undermining authority.
    Offense 7: Zwolenski – 81min – Pointing at TC President – offensive language – derogatory. Whether it’s with a pen or finger, it was used in a derogatory way. Also could be filed under lack of respect.

    This happened at the same time, so I felt it necessary to post both at the same time. Depending on the culture you’re brought up in, single finger or pen is extremely rude. This is why flight attendants and people who work at Disney use the index and middle finger together to direct attention. You also have the military follow this rule and use the whole hand to point.

    • Of all this far I will completely agree with you on these. He was out of line the way he spoke to TCP Alves and let his emotions get the best of him. You’re right on these BM!

  6. Offense 5: Hamilton – 80min – Not calling a lower ranking person in a position of power their title – lack of respect. The position does deserve the respect, even if you feel the person holding it doesn’t.

    Once the administrator claimed he wanted to be called their title, that’s the end of it. Unsure if it gets mentioned later on or not.

  7. Offense 4: Zwolenski – 78min – talking over council president – insubordination – lack of respect for higher ranking individual. Happens again around the 82min mark, but I didn’t include it.

    This is where the meeting starts to devolve into chaos for the next 10 minutes, from an individual that can’t control their emotions.

    • Who can’t control their emotions ?

      This isn’t the military. He gave her his opinion on something. How is that insubordination? I think some of your perceptions aren’t really reality.

      • You agreed to the rules and conditions of using the code of conducts that I have to follow/have had to follow. The administrator could not control his emotions in a public meeting. You do know that it’s not just the military that has this rule right? The other places of employment have this under representing the brand/company.

        As I said before, the infraction was for speaking over the ranking leader in the room. The infraction was not for giving an opinion, it happened during the opinion. In the rules of a meeting, everyone has to wait their turn to talk and be recognized, then talk. According to RONR, which is the basic rules that the town has agreed to for meetings, only one person is allowed to talk at a time. So….. I’m not sure that your perspective is correct about reality. Any other questions?

        • Seeing that you are an expert in all things human resource related, you either went looking for these infractions or worked in one of the worst environments possible and have PTSD. Both of may which explain a lot about you!!

          • Thanks for the compliment in things related to human resources. I just know how to read codes, abide by them, and ensure that other people abide by them as well. People hold people accountable, as to prevent a toxic workplace from forming. A positive work environment does this, and who doesn’t want to work in a positive work environment? If you haven’t been working in one, that explains your reactions to truth and facts. You should probably read them yourself, you might learn a thing or two.

            You’re also currently five (5) days over on a temporary sign needing removal, unless it got removed today, as the event ended on the 4th. Thank you for your future compliance in regards to the matter.

              • Do you not have a temporary sign placed at the middle school corner, for the NS5K? According to NS Regulations, they need to be removed by the 10th day, if not earlier, when the event is completed. 340-4.28 to be exact.

                • I hope you called the police and or filed a complaint with the senior students who did that for their senior project!! The nerve of them!

                  • Oh I didn’t, I actually praise the students for doing that event. Just wanted to let you know that you may want to remove it before someone else does. The last time someone did that to you, you called the called the police on them.

            • “People hold people accountable, as to prevent a toxic workplace from forming. A positive work environment does this, and who doesn’t want to work in a positive work environment?” Actually, the workplace environment you appear to be advocating for is the most toxic one I can possibly imagine. In your view, people ought to spend just about all their waking moments scouring every word uttered, every article of clothing worn, every breath taken by the people around them. A world where folks set out on an eternal quest to find offense–and report it to the authorities!–sounds to any reasonable, serious, well-adjusted human being like a dystopian nightmare, not “a positive work environment.”

              I’m being completely genuine here: I hope you’ll try finding some hobbies. Playing the role of misanthropic keyboard warrior (to say nothing of spending one’s evenings playing town council meetings on loop and furiously scribbling away each time someone blinks too much or sips a beverage too loudly)…that can’t possibly be fun, fulfilling, or good for your mental health.

              • Ah yes, the insult to discredit me path has been chosen.
                Who knew having respect of rules was actually toxic. Who knew giving respect to everyone in the workplace was so very toxic. Try again.

                • You know BM!! You know!!!

                  Don’t let these people tear you and your good work down! You’ve shown a light on so much. Keep that list going!!!

                  Maybe you will get your honorary hall monitor or deputy badge and you can drive around giving our demerits. That does mean you might actually have to see people in person.

  8. Offense 3: Beauregard- 55min – Earning his keep – offensive language – implying others don’t. It’s an outdated term that has been deemed offensive within the last 10 years. Suggestion is to stop using old terms as current culture would consider it not acceptable.

    I know it’s difficult for some people to understand this one, but it’s technically against the code. Would I or do I find this offensive? No, but someone else does. Getting rid of old vocabulary and replacing it with current terminology is the a decent solution. It also shows a small deal of favoritism, and it can be damaging to others who don’t get the praise. Praise the entire team involved or don’t do it at all, pretty simple. If someone goes above and beyond their duty, then suggest an award for them and set a baseline for that award instead of a moving field goal.

    • This is good stuff BM!! Thanks for sharing. Looking forward to seeing the next 7. It’s quite eye-opening, really!!

      • The next 6 happen between 78-82 minute time frame. So it may overlap. I might have to provide offenses 6 and 7 together, as well as 8 and 9 together. Any questions at all what so ever and how HR deals with said infractions? Is the list acceptable per our conditions of the challenge?

        • Like I said, looking forward to hearing what the rest of your list is. How would HR handle these ? Based upon your experience?

          This was not a “challenge”. This was simply asking you to provide evidence and substance to your claims of 10 violations in the 5/6 meeting. (Which you are doing).

          • Of the infractions thus far, a meeting with HR, explaining why they’re there, provide a copy of the code of conduct, either a computer based training or a video about how to conduct yourself in a public meeting when representing a brand/company/town, then finish with a signature. With that signature, you have an option to either agree or disagree with everything, then provide material as to why you disagree, citing regulations, not feelings, within a preset time limit. That’s only if it’s the first offense. That’s from a corporate point of view.

  9. Offense 2: Zwolenski – 53min – didn’t felt it was necessary to provide information on something – insubordination. Did however supply information eventually, but damage was already done.

    Here we have a classic example of insubordination. The meeting was asked to provide an update on grants. If he felt it was not necessary, he could have messaged the council president privately and asked for clarification to see if it was needed or not. In my line of work, if you get asked to provide information about something in a meeting, and you say what he said, you’re in someone’s office getting reprimanded.

  10. Offense 1: O’Hara – 42min – Looks like totem poles – culturally insensitive – derogatory.

    It was clear that she was saying she didn’t like the way the trees looked, and said it looked like this. As totem poles are used as a religious artifact, depends on the culture, making fun of one’s religion is definitely not allowed.

    • No reasonable, serious person could possibly believe this qualifies as an infraction reportable to HR. Good grief, get a grip.

      • I’m sorry that you feel that way. Religious discrimination is a serious issue, you may not like the decision but it is against the code of conducts that I have to follow. It’s a pretty basic rule not to discriminate against religion, race, color, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation. Why would it not be reported is my question to you.

        • Why would a remark saying a tree resembled a totem pole not be reported to HR as religious discrimination? For a variety of reasons: because no reasonable, serious person truly believes a comment like this rises to the level of discrimination; because no one was genuinely offended by the remark (and, let’s face it, that includes you); because, even if someone WAS truly offended, they’d probably have handled the situation like an adult–by approaching the speaker after the meeting and explaining why the remark was impolite, not tattling to HR over hurt feelings; because most folks prefer to give speakers the benefit of the doubt and assume good intentions rather than assume the worst; and because most people think speech/expression should almost always be tolerated, not squelched.

          I’d provide more reasons if I had as much free time on my hands as you do.

          • You’re right, I wasn’t offended by the remark, as that is not my religion. Yes, if the person was willing to talk to you about what was said, you could show them the errors of their ways by explaining what they said was wrong. However, showing respect for all religions, as it is a zero tolerance when discrimination happens, is paramount for creating a safe work environment all individuals. How would you feel if someone started saying bad things about the religion you follow, if you follow one, whether it was intentional or not? Also, due to the rules and conditions of the challenge presented by HR, I went with how strict my job/previous jobs is/are about certain items such as this. As I have mentioned before, people can get reprimanded for wearing the wrong colored shirt. So because of that, it’s very plausible to say that someone would go straight to HR instead of the person who said it.

  11. Dress code violation: None. However O’Hara usually wears a hat, technically it’s against dress and appearance, unless medically required. She did not wear one this past meeting, so good on her. I’ve seen complaints about the wrong colored shirt before, yes it does happen, yes that person was reprimanded for it. One that I did not include for a violation was Beauregard wearing their glasses, not fully on the ears, it seemed to be ill-fitting. Yes, people have gotten in trouble for that. Yes, it falls under dress and appearance. No, I’m not making it up. Yes, having the town’s code of conduct would allow me to see proper dress and appearance, so I had to follow mine. Due to a medical event, Osier could not properly wear their shirt, so not in violation. Yes, getting a sunburn is technically considered damage to government property, and would be out of code for dress and appearance. No, I’m not making any of this up.

    Tomorrow will be offense #1.

  12. Just so everyone knows, the findings were completed yesterday at around 5pm. I’m just waiting on some clarification on something first before the findings are released. Don’t worry, it also has notes and suggestions for everyone involved. It’s as unbiased as I could make it, although people will still throw hissy fits for the offenses that are listed. I will say upfront that I may have missed a couple, but I did my best to dig deep into every employee handbook I could find about the code of conducts that I have to follow, and have had to follow in the past, in a day to day basis at each place of employment. I will also say, that I did not include some offenses, as I deemed them too vague to define. Don’t worry HR, it’ll be posted soon enough.

    • So I’ve decided to post 1 offense per day, or 1 note portion that was written down per day. It’ll allow people to debate/argue with me on why I’ve included it. I think this way will best allow for open conversation for all parties involved that want to be involved. So I will note, that since “HR”, or was it jb, or was it tg, or whatever name they like to use to try amd discredit people, balked at giving me an employee handbook that would include the code of conduct, my findings are based on the code of conducts that I have to follow, or have had to follow, on a daily basis over the course of my employment history. Some findings may feel harsh, some findings may feel biased, I assure you that this was not the case. I had to take my feelings out of the equation, and just go by the books for said findings. I may have missed one or two, and some findings were way to vague to include. Please only reference the offense you’re commenting on, I’ll be creating a new thread per offense. Do not try to skip ahead to a different offense while commenting on the offense at hand, or your argument will be invalid and I’ll win the offense. Yes, I have had to follow these codes before, or currently. No, I’m not making some of these offenses up. Yes, I’ve had people write people up for other, some would call them lesser offenses. Yes, those individuals did get trouble for it as well. I’ll provide dress code violations, with some notes about what was found later tonight.

  13. The person currently “acting” in the HR capacity currently is supervised and reports directly to whom? Is it Mr. St. Onge, or does she report directly to Mr. Zwolenski? Is Mr. Zwolenski the hiring authority for the town? If so, are the “acting,” HR person and her husband both employed by the Town? I see this as an extreme conflict of interest should her testimony be required at the trial of Ms. Rovedo vs Mr. Zwolenski. For this very reason, the HR Director should not report to any other individual employed by the Town. Nor should that person be part of the Union.

    • Mary, as usual, your recent comments regarding “the person currently acting in HR capacity” are full of distracting statements aimed at changing the narrative of the news story to protect your friend’s unprofessionalism.

      The title of the article is “Tensions flare during hearing on human resources job in North Smithfield.” The message in the story is about the unprofessional treatment Mrs. Bernier, Secretary of the Personnel Board, experienced at the hands of Town Council President, Kim Alves. Under Open Forum, President Kim Alves routinely allows people to speak more than the 3 minutes allotted time. Last Monday, President Alves allowed a resident who spoke before Mrs. Bernier to speak for over 8 minutes. When Mrs. Bernier was speaking, President Alves gaveled her at the 4-minute mark. Kim Alves stopped Mrs. Bernier from reading the Personnel Board’s prepared statement to the Town Council. If Secretary Bernier was allowed to finish the statement to Town Council it would have revealed the Personnel Board did not support creating a new position.

      No wonder the town cannot excel at attracting board and commission members to serve. In the years that Kim Alves has served on the Town Council, does anyone know how many board or commission members she has nominated and successfully got them appointed? Can’t think of any.

      Mary, did you read the Budget Committee’s report that was presented to Town Council at Monday night’s meeting? It should be obvious to Council President Alves that the Budget Committee does not support hiring a Personnel Director. Obviously, President Alves did not read the Budget Committee’s report either.

      Mary, you further attempt to cover up Council President Kim Alves’ unprofessional conduct aimed at a volunteer committee member. You do so by writing about a husband and wife working for the town. Mary, there is so much you do not understand and yet you make inaccurate, harmful, and misleading comments. Mary, hold Kim Alves accountable for her actions and her inactions. Do what is right.

      Mary, you opened the wife and husband discussion. Its past time this discussion takes place. Director of Public Works, Ray Pendergast, surely benefits by being married to Town Council President Alves. This must stop. It should have stopped many years ago. Both of them should resign.

      As a Town Councilor, Kim Alves has always been careful not to vote on pay raises for her husband. That obviously would be unethical. What she does vote on is to support every piece of expensive equipment Public Works Director Pendergast wants. She has voted on every new job position at Public Works that Pendergast wants. Councilor Osier is seeking a Facilities Manager to oversee all town properties because it hasn’t been done. Mary, read the Town Charter. That is the job of Public Works Director, Ray Pendergast. Pendergast is responsible or is it irresponsible for all infrastructure? How has Ray Pendergast performed in the position during his tenure? Here are but a few examples.

      • First the Highway Salt Shed rotted away under Pendergast. No maintenance. Very expensive to replace.
      • Memorial Town Hall roof and gutters failed causing water damage and mold-unhealthy conditions under Pendergast. No maintenance. Very expensive to repair and make safe.
      • The Police Station rotten away and is a major health hazard under Pendergast. No maintenance. Very-very-very expensive to repair and make safe.
      • DPW vehicle bodies are rotting away. They look terrible and could provide more service life if inexpensive body work was performed.

      Come on Mary, stop making excuses for your friends. Tell the truth, it is good for your soul and the town.

      • Very interesting JC. I see a pattern here. The Alves / Hamilton / Clifford pit bulls come on here and re-direct the attention vs what the articles intent. BM started with accusing 10 violations in the 5/6 meeting alone against ??? The TA, who knows. But same play. Redirect the story away from its intended fact line. Next up Mary with false accusations.

        Thank you for pointing out the MASSIVE conflict of interest between Alves and head of DPW. How has this not been made an issue ??? Considering how bad the town infrastructure is and how Alves has gotten nothing done!

        • What redirect? It’s about the need for an HR person due to these reasons that happened in the last meeting. Sounds like someone is trying to project, but is failing, badly. Sad.

      • Wow where to begin on this comment. I will only speak to finance portion of the comment. First if I was a town councilman I would question every recommendation made by the budget committee as it is my job. For example if you read the budget committee report they increased the school department budget funding from the town due to less funding from the state. Now if we had true financial experienced professionals on the budget committee who have prepared budgets and had to explain actual variances they would have realized that the school department budget is constantly favorable every year by $500k plus. So if I was reviewing the school department budget I would reduce the budget by $500k because if you over budget consistently you just reduce anything projected by the school department. Second I do not want a surplus so the school department can use the surplus any way they please on non educational capital spending. I would require a real school department capital budget and over site on how a prior surplus are spent and I would try to avoid future surplus with better budgeting.

        Now as far as the town finance department I would not add additional resources as I would find a finance director who has monthly financial accounting experience, audit experience, and budgeting experience. The current director is lacking a three of the main skills needed for a finance director.

        Finally the lack of maintenance was not the fault of the public works director but was the fault of the former town council president and town administrator who budget zero funds for any police building maintenance. And why did they budget zero for maintenance, they wanted a new Taj Mahal police station. The same folks also budgeted zero money for new equipment and vehicles so the public works director can only work with the funds he is given. So if you going to point blame you need to look no further than town leadership who valued union raises to garner votes instead of capital improvements and maintenance.

        • Wow MC, sorry TS, so much to unpack here!

          You claim you will only speak to the finance portion however then take the following jabs:
          – school department sandbags their budget
          – budget committee is incompetent
          – finance director is REALLY incompetent
          – it’s the past town council for todays problems.

          Everyone is incompetent, there is deep
          conspiracy and it’s not the current leadership that’s the issue. Sounds like someone everyone knows continuous rhetoric.

          Another shield of Alves and Hamilton!

          • So let’s see what’s not about finance. School budget finance, budget committee is incompetent about finance, finance director not qualified finance, and current and past administration not budgeting and funding maintenance again about finance. So the town is failing due to bad management and leadership so this is just like a pro sports team time to get some new players. At least some town councilors are not asleep at the meeting or making faces when people are speaking.

            • Reading comprehension is something they’ve been struggling in this comment section. Once you strike a nerve of theirs, they lose emotional control and lash out during hissy fits. It’s best to just ignore them, but they continue to lose, quite badly, and I enjoy the victory laps.

            • We got two new “players” this last cycle and a new TC president. Please tell me what have they accomplished this far during their tenure.

              And your right, gaveling the secretary of a town board and appointed volunteer because she didn’t like what she had to say is definitely much classier. That’s called a threat to democracy!

        • That wasn’t the question Mr. Clifford.

          Please share any and all accomplishments to date of the new members of the TC and the new TC President. Same “look over here” re-direct strategy.

          Also, whom did Ms. Alves, Mr. Osier and Ms. Hamilton successfully recruit to any board?

          • I asked the question of JC not you HR, unless of course you’re commenting using both identities. I suspect that’s the case. If I knew the answer to JC’s question I would’ve answered it. I’ve never been at a meeting where anybody said “oh I’m the one who recruited this person for the committee assignment”. You apparently know who recruited who, so I’m asking both of you (JC and HR) who recruited the last two budget committee members?

      • Well JC/HR you claim that Ms Alves never recruits people to serve on boards but when I asked you who recruited the last two budget committee appointees you’ve chosen not to answer. Are you dodging my question because the answer doesn’t fit your narrative. If you can’t tell us who recruited the last two budget committee members then I think it’s probably safe to assume you’ve been uttering nothing but unfounded claims as usual. We’re entering the election season so I guess we’ll be hearing a lot from the idiots who use aliases instead of their actual identities. For all we know you could be JB or TG. Cowardly.

    • You are wrong – there is NO “acting” HR position – that person has been employed by the town for several years, has taken many job related courses and has many certifications- she is also a union employee therefore cannot be “acting”

  14. BM, can you please reference the 5/6 meeting time minute and exactly what each infraction is? What was said or done and by whom and to whom? Your vague ramble still doesn’t support the argument of outlandish behavior or provide any evidence.


    1. Meeting minute xyz – council president Alves gavels personnel board member and speaks with rude tone and states “You done?”

    Please reply with your list outlined like that; If that’s possible for you.

    • Different name, same play book, this is getting tiresome. When would you like this report to be done by? Also, are we really going to allow that comment as it is derogatory in nature?

      • You are a very special person BM.

        If anything, your incoherent rants, run ons and illogical thoughts continue to provide comic relief for those of us that reside in the real world. I’d advise you though that someday your playbook of baseless, flat out lies and accusations and then crying wolf when someone asks you for more details and facts will catch up with you in some way.

        • Per my last response, when would you like this report completed by? Not once did i say I wouldn’t provide the report. Once again noted, your comment is in violation of rules and regulations put forth by Sandy and her team, being derogatory in nature towards a member.

          • Anytime you’d like to share the details is fine. No deadline. Let’s just see you actually follow through.

            If I was making commentary that was derogatory toward you, you most certainly would know it. It would be very clear, not cryptic.

            • Never said it was cryptic, just said it was derogatory in nature. Is there an employee handbook I can reference the code of conduct, or do you want me to use previous material from previous employers? Are you looking for how strict it can be, or looking for ideas on how to proceed, or something else? Are you looking for all infractions, or just the ones previously mentioned?

              • You called out the TA and JB for 10 infractions from the 5/6 meeting. Please list them with time and to whom each infraction was directed at. Very simple.

                • I did not call out JB, please reread what I have written. Per my last reply, are you willing to provide an employee handbook for the code of conduct? Very simple.

                • If you’re unwilling to provide the requested materials, will you allow me to base my findings on previous codes of conduct? This would expedite the process. In doing so, will you accept the findings as factual or continue to make derogatory remarks? Furthermore, a non response from you would indicate that I’m allowed to base my findings on previous material. Thank you for your compliance.

                  • You came out and stated that there were at least 10 HR violations from the 5/6 meeting, 5 of which were from the TA.

                    Simply provide meeting minute time of violation and what was said by whom, to whom.

                    No one said anything about an HR manual or code of conduct. Either provide the examples from your perspective or simply just stop with the childish nonsense. It’s quite simple.

                    • Since you’re unwilling to provide me with the requested materials, we are in agreement that I’ll be basing my findings from previous employee handbooks and previous codes of conducts that I’ve been apart of. If you’re unhappy with my findings, sorry that you feel that way, but it’s based on factual information. I will provide 10 infractions that you have requested. So the reason for an employee handbook and code of conduct is to provide the actual infractions, as some places have strict rules to follow. I’m not playing any games, as I’m just trying to find what the lines are. As stated above, you have agreed to let me base my findings from previous work experiences. Thank you for your compliance.

                    • You see, I asked when you’d like this report by, you gave no due date. Plus I need to add the time of the offense per your request. I’d you’re unhappy with the parameters that you set, sorry that you hurt your own feelings.

  15. BM, Can you clarify this? I have requested this information and there have been no additional complaints against the administrator. Or do you mean that you personally felt there were infractions?

    • Just in that town council meeting alone, that’s all. Personally felt, no. Being around other businesses and knowing how HR works, I know there were infractions.

  16. Seeing as I counted no less than 10 infractions that should’ve been reported to an HR person, it’s clearly needed as a check and balance to help curtail the outlandish behavior from individuals. The TA alone would’ve received around five, that’s embarrassing.

    • Please support these accusations with facts. Five counts from the TA alone? Please share. Unsubstantiated alligators can lead to civil liability. You might want to backup these claims.

      • Seeing as this is your go to, as I’ve proven you wrong multiple times over, you’re about to be embarrassed again, meaning you probably won’t respond after. You will probably get one of your “pit-bulls” to throw support behind the TA and claim something weird such as no one would report all these things, or something along this line. I guess if you insist though, here goes it.

        Well that’s easy enough, you’ve got 3 counts of verbal abuse toward members of the council during the meeting and towards residents of the town. Since the town council is the administrator’s boss, insubordination for failing to hold their emotions in check after trying to diffuse the situation. Yes, you can be held accountable for multiple infractions for the same thing. I’d have to go back and rewatch it, but that’s 4 just there. All depends on the company and hr structure, but I’ve seen infractions as little as body language during a meeting, looking like someone fall asleep during a meeting, and for asking a question wrong. It also depends on the person making the complaint, could be lumped together, could be separate, could just ignore it. You, personally, probably wouldnt have reported anything for whatever reason. I personally have done each infraction separately, and advise others to so the same.

Leave a Reply