REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE
ON MILEAGE POLICY
AUGUST 2012
I. History
The 2009 Town Meeting considered a petitioned warrant article to pay for "state mandated education for elected officials required to access the NH state computer banks to function at their job." Compensation was to be $10.00 per hour, with mileage reimbursed at the federal rate. The article explicitly recited that "inasmuch as the people of Orange volunteer service to the Town, their mandated education should be compensated at a reasonable rate." The tax collector pointed out that she was required to attend the tax workshop, although it was not a computer course. The Meeting voted against broadening the policy to include all training for all employees, but passed an amended article covering a) state mandated education [required for] b) elected officials to function in their job.
In 2011, the stipend was raised to generous $125 per day, and $62.50 per half-day training session. The rationale was to attract young people to Town service, many of whom - particularly those on the check list - are required to lose a day's pay in order in order to attend training crucial to their jobs. It was also noted that the state does not actually mandate training. An article to reimburse all mileage traveled "in [the] interest of the town" was defeated.
In the wake of a carefully restricted policy, successive Boards of Selectmen have received requests for mileage reimbursement altogether beyond its scope. The current Board asked that a committee give some thought to the issue of mileage reimbursement generally.
We reviewed the mileage policies of several other towns and institutions, as well as the history and current practice of Orange, and tried to factor in the reasonable use of town funds, fairness, state law, and common sense. It is our recommendation that no policy of general mileage reimbursement be instituted without a vote of the Town Meeting. We nonetheless suggest that simple prudence, state law, and custom allow reimbursement in limited cases. Finally, we strongly endorse the policy of mileage and stipend for town employees who attend training courses essential to their duties, conditioned upon the prior approval of the Selectboard.
II. Should the Town pay for mileage?
It hardly need be said that Orange is a small town, with no source of commercial revenue; expenditures come, in essence, directly from one's neighbors' pockets. There is also an honorable tradition of volunteerism, which we should recognize and foster. Nearly everyone drives; and most of us drive to West Lebanon, or Bristol, or Plymouth regularly. The last selectman who walked - everywhere - was likely Harlan Bull - a good sixty years ago. Accordingly, it is a fair expectation that town employees and officers will have private transportation. And it is equally fair to expect that most town business can be carried out during a personal trip to the commercial centers, as in fact it always has been.
Towns of like size do not routinely pay their officers or employees for mileage. Dorchester does not pay for travel within the town; the selectmen will pay for a required trip to Plymouth. Warren (pop.960) does not pay for mileage; it gives its custodian (who empties the trash barrels on the common) a $25 stipend; and the Selectboard might reimburse for a specially requested trip to Plymouth. Notably, both policies seem to be consonant with RSA 275:57, defining a reimbursable "expense" as one incurred "in connection with [one's] employment and at the request of the employer.."
If the Town were to institute mileage reimbursement, much travel would not be covered. Even large towns, such as Wolfeboro, uniformly exclude travel to and from the town house or other work sites: you don't get paid to commute. This is also the universal practice in business. Normal requirements include 1) proof that the employee has liability insurance, and 2) a contemporaneous record of mileage (starting and ending mileage, date, points of travel, business reason, etc.) A town task that can be carried out during a personal trip downtown is not reimbursable. Policies recite that the town will not reimburse for parking tickets, fines, repairs or towing. The Census specifically directs that no passenger travel in a car being used on census business.
If the Town Meeting were to fund and direct the adoption of a mileage reimbursement policy, we recommend that it be in writing, and furnished to each employee and officer to ensure that everyone understands the requirements. It would also be wise to create a simple form for requests for payment.
We are not in favor of a broad policy of reimbursement. It is the nature of such payment schemes to expand. Orange has - to our great profit - many residents who simply do not submit requests for payments to which they are entitled. This generosity is not guaranteed; and their successors in office are likely - not unreasonably - to regard payment for travel as an entitlement, if most others are claiming it. Once instituted, a mileage reimbursement policy fosters the attitude that travel for the town is a routine expense, reducing the incentive to chose a more frugal method of getting the job done.
In rejecting the proposal that this year's Selectboard institute a "trial" policy, which could then be reviewed by the Town Meeting, we considered that benefits, once extended, are difficult to withdraw; and that there would be an element of unfairness if individuals who ran for office expecting reimbursement were then, after election, denied it.
The discussion of the related salary issue (Article 15) at the 2011 Town Meeting anticipated the creation of job descriptions in aid of the salary review. We note that mileage reimbursement qualifies as compensation, and may affect, for example, the workmen's compensation rate. If an expanded mileage policy is adopted, it ought to be considered by the salary committee as well. It would also be helpful, in gauging the cost, to track mileage reimbursements in a separate budget category.
Finally, while the Selectboard is in a better position than we are to assess the Town's fiscal health, your committee did consider that last year's Board had the luxury of a very high (17%) unassigned fund balance, and was able to lower the tax liability by some $62,000. It seems unlikely that this year's Board will have as much leeway. In a period of both state and federal cutbacks, in a year which may entail a rise in the tax rate, it did not seem prudent to saddle the Town with an additional, ever-rising expense.
III. Reasonableness, Fairness, and Fiscal Prudence
The town does, in fact, pay some mileage, and in attempting to square current practice with common sense, the committee focused on "reasonableness:" that the goal of any policy should be to encourage town officers and employees to make the most effective use of town funds. (The cost of overnight USPS is significantly less than a hundred mile round trip to Concord, or Haverhill.) To quote a former road agent: "Frugality makes sense." With or without a formal policy, the selectmen are responsible for prudent attention to town expenditures. We also gave weight to custom, and felt that in the one situation where mileage has been attached to the position, it ought not be unfairly withdrawn for the mere sake of consistency.
We feel that mileage reimbursement in three specific situations is fair, prudent, and reasonable, and recommend that requests for payment be approved in the current year.
1) The Road Agent should be paid mileage for the use of his personal truck for his duties, from the Highway budget.
One former Road Agent contended that, since the town furnished the Road Agent with a truck, he should not use his own vehicle. The current Agent notes that much work can be done out of his personal pickup, in which he carries tools; it is both efficient, and less expensive than running the town truck. The committee agrees that it is more cost-effective to allow the road agent his mileage out of the Highway budget.
2) Our building inspector - who was on the committee - has for years billed for mileage rather than bill his travel time at the hourly rate. (For years there was no stipend; and thereafter a nominal one). That his budget is paid for in part by his collections (building permits) should make this revenue neutral. The price of a building permit should periodically be adjusted to ensure that it in fact reflects the cost of its issuance, as the ordinance requires.
3) Like many other officers and employees, the secretary to the Selectboard routinely carries out town tasks on her personal trips to West Lebanon without requesting reimbursement for time or travel. Others who cannot conveniently do the same should direct their requests - e.g., for supplies - to the secretary. There are infrequent occasions, however, when the Selectboard makes a specific, time-sensitive request. In accordance with RSA 275:57, such travel should be eligible for reimbursement, as either time, or mileage, but not both. [As an example of a "drop everything" request, we cite the secretary's race to Dartmouth Hitchcock to obtain the physician's signature needed to allow the town to receive its defibrillator, on the day before the offer expired.]
IV. Hardship
There may be cases where an officer or employee is unduly burdened by the specifics of the office. The town clerk, as a hypothetical example, is required by the DMV to deposit the fees within specified time in a specified bank. By chance, our current clerk can do so en route to work. But were she required to make a twice weekly trip of ten miles and more solely to deposit DMV fees, the Town might consider whether some recompense would be due. We note that the Town receives $3.00 for every transaction, of which the clerk receives fifty cents. Some portion of the town's share might be used to reimburse an unreasonably burdened clerk.
On the other hand, any creative mind can come up with reasons why he or she needs to be reimbursed. A foolish consistency, as the saying goes, is the hobgoblin of little minds. But special pleading for individuals, and unlimited discretion in the Board, can cause resentments and the perception of unfairness. In general, we do not believe that mileage should be reimbursed; and any exception "for hardship" should truly be exceptional.
V. State Conferences and Training
The Committee was strongly urged to support the current policy of stipend and - for the driver, if there is carpooling - mileage for those who attend training conferences essential to their jobs. We do so. While there has been some complaint about multiple employees attending the same conference, we note that - at least in the case of voter registration - the material can be dense, and the topic extensive. We think that it is not reasonable to expect one person (especially one new to the position) to absorb all the information, return, and reproduce the conference in detail for coworkers. For less technical subjects, it might be sufficient to for one person to attend and later share the printed materials.
We do recommend that the Town retain the requirement of prior approval by the Board. Guiding that oversight should be a consideration of whether the training is in fact essential to the official job function. Mileage reimbursement should be restricted to travel for half- and full-day training. An hour-long talk in Concord does not justify the $55.00 cost of travel.
***********
In conclusion, we remind the Board that we did not conduct a survey; and that town opinion, as we gleaned it, varies. It may be that a majority of the Town will differ from our conclusions. We simply hope that our efforts will assist our community in weighing the issues. We attach for your consideration a fairly restrictive policy, which attempts to meld current practice with fairness.
Respectfully submitted,
Sal Guardagnino
Colin Higbie
Rosemary Haness
Jenna McAlister
Donald Pfaefflin
Sandi Pierson
Nancy Pike
Judith Lindahl