City Councilor raps $7G COVID hazard pay funding for Dover shelter employees

City Councilor Steve Beaudoin speaks at the Feb. 1 Council meeting as councilors Pete Lachapele, left and Skip Gilman look on. (Screenshot)

ROCHESTER - Earlier this month City Councilors voted overwhelmingly to authorize CARES ACT spending of $7,000 to fund "hazardous duty" pay for workers at a Dover shelter, but one councilor said this week it seemed unfair since hundreds of employees at businesses across the state never got such bonuses.
"I would hope people working in these shelters and shelter users are wearing masks and practicing social distancing, so why would they be at increased risk," said City Councilor Steve Beaudoin on Tuesday.
He compared those working with a relatively small clientele at area shelters to those working on the front lines in area supermarkets and department stores who are coming in close contact with sometimes thousands of people in a single shift.
A discussion on the funding begins around the 41-minute mark of the Feb. 1 meeting, which is linked below, with Beaudoin asking Economic Development grant writer Julian Long for a definition of "hazard pay," which Long said was customary during the pandemic and offered to workers due to "possible exposure to COVID."
"That happens every day you leave your house," Beaudoin told The Rochester Voice.
During the discussion Beaudoin asked the council to divide the funding proposal, which also included continued funding of $7,000 for Waypoint, a nonprofit serving homeless youth; and $2,414 for the Strafford County Homeless Shelter.
After a short discussion on whether the question could be divided, City Attorney Terrence O'Rourke stated it could not be.
Asked for a further explanation on Monday, O'Rourke noted in an email to The Rochester Voice, "For a question to be divided, each part would have to exist on its own. For example, you could make a Motion to appoint John Doe, Jane Doe, and Jack Doe to the ZBA. A request to divide that question would split the main Motion into three separate motions: Motion to appoint John Doe, Motion to appoint Jane Doe, and a Motion to appoint Jack Doe. Each of those three motion stand on their own.
"The CDBG motion was simply to approve a full amount. Division would not work there. It required a Motion to Amend the total amount of money in the main Motion to Approve."
Since potentially dividing the question would have been to vote on one motion to give $11,414 to Waypoint and HCSC; and another to give $7,000 to My Friend's Place, we asked for clarification.
"The division cannot require rewriting a resolution beyond an essentially mechanical separation," he noted. "This proposed division was really an entirely new resolution."
According to Robert's Rules of Order, dividing the question is applicable "when each of the different parts, although relating to a single subject, is capable of standing as a complete proposition without the others."
Long said there may have been some added confusion since the entire discussion about the funding centered on hazard pay for shelter employees, while Waypoint and HCSC's money had nothing to do with hazard pay yet they were all lumped in one motion.
"I just don't agree with this rush to just spend CARES ACT money, especially on hazardous pay," Beaudoin said.

To view the discussion on hazard pay for shelter workers click here.