At the last Bristol Town Council meeting on July 28, Chairman Nathan Calouro opened the discussion about compensation and benefits for the town’s two elected employees, Administrator Steven Contente and Clerk Melissa Cordeiro, by clarifying that the planned changes were in no way a reflection of the service of former Clerk Louis Cirillo, who retired at the beginning of this year with a $61,000 severance package.

“That was in keeping with what has happened in the past,” said Mr. Calouro. “But we will be getting away from those buyouts (and) there should be a policy in place.”

The proposed changes, per a memorandum from Town Solicitor Michael Ursillo, recommended the elimination of a buyback option for health insurance, life insurance, accrual of sick and vacation days, and longevity payments.

It was determined early in the discussion that life insurance, at a minimal annual cost, is not an issue, and while there was extended discussion of the cost-effectiveness of allowing or denying a buyout on heath insurance, that was ultimately not a sticking point.

Neither was accrual of sick and vacation time, which have been voluntarily declined by both Mr. Contente and Ms. Cordeiro.

Longevity pay was, however, an issue. This is where town employees get bonuses, on top of their salaries, based on how many years they have worked for the town. Bristol currently awards longevity bonuses ranging from 3.5 percent of someone’s salary for four years of service, to 7.5 percent for 15-plus years of service. Mr. Contente, who retired from a 20-year career in the police department before coming back to work for the town when he was elected to office a couple of years later, is most likely not eligible for longevity pay, because his service to the town was interrupted.

However, Ms. Cordeiro, who has been working for the town for 15 years, is entitled, based on past practice — and has been receiving longevity bonuses since taking office last November.

Changes in 2022

Mr. Calouro clarified that none of the decisions being made at the meeting were to take effect during the current term of office. Of that, and the other issues, the Council was pretty well in agreement.

“If there’s one thing that I would want to see go, it would be longevity because I can’t understand the concept of longevity when you’re running for elected office,” said Councilor Mary Parella.

At the same time, there was some concern about when the new official policy should take effect.

“Where I struggle, is that we’re making a decision for the person who doesn’t exist right now,” said Mr. Calouro. “I hope you run again, and I hope you’re successful,” he said to Mr. Contente and Ms. Cordeiro. “But our decision needs to be based off the seat, and I believe that one of the benefits of removing the longevity is that it keeps it consistent and even and fair.”

“That is for everyone, not the two current people that are here,” he continued. “This is why it’s so uncomfortable to have this conversation. This is not a reflection on the current people, but I think that we need to make a decision.”

Councilor Tony Teixeira made a motion to accept the changes proposed in Mr. Ursillo’s memorandum that would eliminate longevity, accruals, and insurance buybacks; but allow for life insurance policies. Councilor Timothy Sweeney seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously, to go into effect at the end of the current term of elected office.

Emotional reactions

Ms. Cordeiro expressed her disappointment with the decision.

“I ran for this office thinking that I would be treated just like anybody else before me,” she said. “I’m not asking to be treated differently.” She mentioned the longevity bonus collected by Mr. Contente following his retirement from the Police Department as an example of how this policy would be unevenly applied in her case, which clearly upset Mr. Contente.

“I’m sorry, but since my name’s been brought up, I have an obligation to defend myself,” he said. “First of all, I don’t think I should be entitled to longevity, and I went on the record last meeting relating to this topic … I’m not here to nickel and dime the public, I’m in a public position to serve, it’s an elected position, it’s not a union position. So it really upsets me a little bit where you bring in my decision to collect a longevity check on a pension from 20 years of honorable service (as a patrol officer.)”

Solicitor Ursillo redirected the conversation, noting that the new policy leaves plenty of room for adjustment.

“This is a policy that you just adopted this evening, and the next Council that sits in November of 2022 could change that policy, because it’s not an ordinance, it’s a policy,” he said. “I think it was mentioned earlier, the Council, whoever is sitting, can always take into consideration during budget time how long (an employee has) been there, how good of a job they’ve done, etc., so you can adjust those salaries.”