Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout 03/30/2011 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Committee MeetingMINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE March 30, 2011 A meeting of the Committee of the Whole, of the Council of the County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, was called to order by Councilmember Jay Furfaro, Chair, at 3371-A Wilcox Road, Lihu`e, Kauai, on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 at 3:38 p.m., after which the following members answered the call of the roll: Honorable Jay Furfaro Honorable Derek S.K. Kawakami Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Dickie Chang Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura Honorable Mel Rapozo Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura Minutes of the March 2, 2011 Committee of the Whole Meeting. Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Bynum, seconded by Councilmember Chang, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the March 2, 2011 Committee of the Whole meeting was approved. The Committee proceeded on its agenda item as follows: Bill No. 2395 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SALARIES OF COUNTY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES [This item was deferred] JAY FURFARO (Committee Chair): The next bill, bill 2395 I have received a request from the County Attorney's office to ask for a deferral and perhaps the rationale behind that is submitting an executive session on compensation issues. that have come up and I would like to do this two ways. May I ask you to come up and confirm that, county attorney, and so that people in the audience could then give testimony on the reason for his request for a deferral and then I will open it to the public. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. AL CASTILLO, COUNTY ATTORNEY: Good afternoon Chair Furfaro, Council members, County Attorney Al Castillo. Yes I was away for a couple of weeks, not a couple of weeks I'm sorry. I left here I think on the 18th and I just returned. During the time I was gone I took all of the salary ordinance documents research with me and I spent a lot of hours on it and it was clear to me that I needed time to... the opinion, the draft opinion was already ready on March the 16th; however, what I would like to do is number one I request to have an executive session next week and number two, I would like to meet with the framer of the amendment just to make sure I have a clear understanding of what the proposer wants to do (I believe that is Councilmember Rapozo). Providing that I can ~.. meet with him either Thursday or Friday, we can have the opinion ready prior to the executive session next week. So that's where I stand and I spent a lot of hours on this. Mr. Furfaro: Okay, I just wanted to make sure .that the other members had an opportunity to understand your rationale and request and the courtesy you wish to extend to Councilmember Rapozo. Let me see if there are any questions from members while you're in the chair. Councilwoman Yukimura? JOANN YUKIMURA, VICE CHAIR: Yes thank you. Mr. Castillo will we be able to get a copy of the opinion before we go into executive session? Mr. Castillo: Yes and like I said... Ms. Yukimura: So we can just have some time to look at it. Mr. Castillo: Yes provided that I can meet with Councilmember Rapozo Thursday or Friday and meet with him at length, because, there's a lot of questions that I need to ask and he is the framer of the proposal. So there's some legal questions that I need to ask him regarding the proposal. Mr. Furfaro: Councilmember Bynum. TIM BYNUM: Without going into detail, the issues related to this bill have brought up a whole bunch of legal questions so I'm waiting for the answers and so it's not just one question right? Mr. Castillo: It's a whole... It's... Mr. Bynum: The Salary Commission and what the Charter allows and doesn't allow and all of that? Mr. Castillo: Yes. Mr. Bynum: Okay, thank you. Mr. Castillo: You're welcome. Mr. Furfaro: Are there anymore questions for the County Attorney? Thank you Al. Mr. Castillo: You're welcome. Mr. Furfaro: I will continue to have the rules suspended. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to testify? Come right up Mr. Stoessel. HORACE STOESSEL: Thank you Mr. Chair, my name is Horace Stoessel. I'm not aware of any legal obstacles to this bill being approved today and sent on to the council. If there are such obstacles I would like to hear what they are. Of course we in the public are not privy to the questions that were sent to the county attorney but looking at the bill itself I don't see any reason why the committee cannot approve this bill and send it forward today. Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Bynum has a question for you 2 Mr. Stoessel? Mr. Bynum: Mr. Stoessel, thank you for being here. I believe some of the questions that I'm waiting for answers on were generated by yourself so, I mean the current bill... Mr. Stoessel Is your mic on? Mr. Bynum: i will try to speak up. Mr. Stoessel: Thank you. Mr. Bynum: The current bill has provisions that set evaluation standards and I believe it was you saying that we didn't have that authority so I'm confused. Some of the legal questions that I'm anxious to hear answered are ones that I thought were thoughtfully raised by you. I don't know the answer. I'm waiting to hear guidance from... Mr. Stoessel: What specifically in this bill are you referring to? Mr. Bynum: Well I believe the current draft of the bill has criteria for doing employee evaluations for one. Is that correct? Mr. Stoessel: I'm not aware of it, is that true? Mr. Bynum: The current, the one that's currently before us I think does. So one of the questions for instance was, whether the council or the salary commission has the authority to set those criterias and I think that was a question that you had posed and so I'm anxious to hear those answers from the county attorney. Mr. Stoessel: Yes I certainly raised that question. What I'm puzzled about right now is that my understanding of the current form of the bill there is nothing in it about performance evaluations. Mr. Bynum: Well I believe there was an amendment that passed that set the criteria for evaluations. Mr. Stoessel: Well I understood that was removed from the bill because the last version of the bill that I received had nothing in it about. performance evaluations. Mr. Bynum: I could be mistaken but in my mind right now we had an amendment, it passed, and the current, the one 'that's before us, the draft that's before us has that provisions in it. Mr. Furfaro: I'm sorry, I was recognizing councilwoman Yukimura. I thought you were finished but go ahead and continue. Mr. Bynum: Yeah so maybe we need clarification on that. I was just confused by your testimony because I thought the current version had those provisions. I know your previous testimony and your question about whether that was appropriate or not, and I listened to your, feedback and when you raise questions I don't know the answer to I want to consult with my legal advisors. So that's one of the questions I assumed we will be discussing so... 3 Mr. Stoessel: Okay, I was just not aware that was a part of this bill because the last version of this bill that I saw had nothing in it about performance evaluations. Mr. Bynum: So we'll see that you get a copy of the current draft that's before us. Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Stoessel, hold on just a second, I have Councilwoman Yukimura that has a question and then Councilmember Rapozo. Councilmember Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: Well it's not so much. a question but part of an answer at least to Councilmember Bynum's at least so we can clear this up. We have a bill I believe in its present form; it does include the evaluations. You had recommended that we take that out because you feel we don't have the authority. I think Councilmember Rapozo has that amendment to propose to do that but the very fact is that that is the issue before us. Whether we have the authority or not and I think the proposal to take it out is based on the statement that we don't have the authority but it is something that we want clarified from the county attorney. Mr. Stoessel: I understand the concern about that point. The bill's stated purpose is to confirm the salary ordinance to Section 29.03 in the Charter. It's on that basis that I'm suggesting that the bill could be approved today according to its stated purpose and that does not render any decision one way or another about performance evaluations. Ms. Yukimura: But you have testified before on this bill that you didn't think it was within our power and for some of us who may feel that it is and should be, it's an appropriate amendment which did get incorporated early on and so that's why there is some legal questions we have to discuss with our attorney. Mr. Furfaro: Councilmember Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: I think we used the word bill and amendments and I think we interchange them and it's confusing. The bill as it is currently written includes the evaluation process. The amendment that I proposed was simply a housekeeping measure to do what the salary commission years ago mandated and the council at the time failed to do so. This is a housekeeping matter and we need to fix it to come in compliance with the charter, we got to fix the code. Anything outside of what the charter mandates or authorizes the salary commission can be done in a separate bill. It can be done if this council feels they want to try and test that water whether or not we can tell the Administration what to do then we can do that in a special bill. I agree with you Mr. Stoessel that in fact I don't see the legal obstacle to pass this amendment to bring this section in compliance with the charter and I don't see any legal challenge. I got to tell you I'm frustrated and I just heard about this executive session and meeting with the county attorney right now. I just heard that right now and yet I am the proposer of this amendment but I have heard nothing up until a few minutes ago as to what was going on so I'm kind of disappointed, but nonetheless I will participate, however I will be I mean I agree we should pass this bill out today as it's amended, pass the amendment, get it out, so we can be in compliance with the charter and the mandate of the salary commission years ago. Again if this council feels they want to get into that discussion with applying performance evaluations on the administration, then I can see us having an executive session to address that. As far as this attempt, this was simply a 4 housekeeping measure that was not done by past councils. It needs to be done because I think it's long overdue. I will not support a deferral for this bill; I'm hoping we can get this passed today but if we're going to move forward on another bill that we'll address the performance evaluations then I will participate with that. Thank you. Mr. Stoessel: I would like to ask for clarification around the use of the word amendment. I understood Mr. Rapozo to say that this bill is an amendment to the salary ordinance. Is that your intention? Mr. Rapozo: Yes, the amendment, actually what's on the agenda is an amendment. It's a bill to amend. Mr. Stoessel Okay. Mr. Rapozo: And the amendment itself doesn't include... we are removing the language that deals with the performance evaluations, among other things. Mr. Stoessel: Okay the question. that was posed to me has to do with an amendment within this amendment as I understand it that was first proposed by Councilmember Yukimura and it's included in the paper I've just been handed. The only remaining mystery to me is somewhere between that time which was as I recall in January and the present, at one of the meetings .this bill or this amendment came back and it did not have the amendment about performance evaluations in it and that's what I was speaking from along with what I consider to be the basic fact. That is the stated purpose of this. bill and I see nothing in the charter that requires Mr. Rapozo's proposed amendment or bill to have anything in it about performance evaluations. Mr. Furfaro: Okay Mr. Stoessel can you hold on for just one second. Councilwoman Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: I don't think the issue is whether something is required. The proposal is that the issues of salaries are so important as tied to performance evaluations. And so the question before the council is a policy one. Do we want to include that which is also included in the salary resolution as part and parcel of our salary ordinance? So that's a question and I ,think it's a policy question and you have raised some legal questions and we want to get those answered before we can incorporate them or choose not to incorporate them. Mr. Furfaro: So Mr. Stoessel and this is for Mr. Rapozo as well I only got to request today for the executive session from the county attorney. So none of us are miles ahead of this, we're not. The county attorney has expressed a desire to defer this item which is in the committee of the whole of which I chair. He has also indicated to us that he will be possibly coming back with an executive session based on a discussion he wants to have with the introducer of the amendment. I'm just looking for this deferral at this particular time until such time that the county attorney can have some time with Mr. Rapozo. That's what I'm asking for today. Mr. Stoessel: May I pose one other question? Mr. Furfaro: Go right ahead sir. Mr. Stoessel: Are there objections among council members to 5 doing what Mr. Rapozo suggested? That is to say to keep separate his bill and any bill relating to performance evaluations? Mr. Furfaro: I will give you my opinion on it and I speak as a Manager of 37 years. I believe that most organizations in structure do measure the incentive of giving somebody a salary review based on the fact that they will actually meet apre-determined operating performance standard. In other words in the next so many months in particular for the County Clerk, I would like to see us accomplish the following tasks whether it's dealing with some audio visual particulars to .approve transparency and immediate responses. Those types of things are actually put in his performance review. Accepting the fact that you are given normally in business a range of salaries based on one's ability to perform the tasks assigned in that individuals performance evaluation. I say there is some merit in having the two but at the same time I want to make sure I say that I clearly hear what you're saying, that there was never an attachment from the salary recommendations from the commission that indicated that. So my answer to you is I think if the county attorney thinks it's worth discussing with Mr. Rapozo and to see if it generates an executive session than I'm okay with a deferral. So I'm not actually answering your question but I am trying to clarify the two pathways we can take. I don't want to be the yogi berra of the council and say when you get to a fork in the road take it. You got to go one way. or the other and I think that I think is willing to be able to hear something from the county attorney. Mr. Stoessel: Well my final comment is and I think I can say this is true for my wife and me both. It has been an ongoing concern that the purpose, the original purpose of Mr. Rapozo's bill has been in danger of being lost ever since this business of performance evaluation was added on to it and as I had mentioned somewhere in the past in my opinion to try to include such material in this bill introduces a second purpose. Mr. Furfaro: Understood. you. Mr. Stoessel: Which is a clear violation of the charter. Thank Mr. Furfaro: Understood and I want to make sure you understand that I clearly hear you on that point because there are other things you could do separate from the administration in the way of upward appraisals that we can do separate from the salary. Thank you sir, thank you. Mrs. Stoessel. . Phyllis Stoessel: Phyllis Stoessel for the record. I didn't think I was going to have to speak today. I have testified a few times before this council for the stated purpose of this bill and today the proposer of that bill said that it is a housekeeping bill. Chairwoman Yukimura .said that the issue regarding performance appraisals is a policy issue. I have recommended that these two issues be separated and that the question of performance evaluation is one that is complex and needs time to be dealt with completely. Therefore I still am of the opinion that to take up performance appraisals separately is the best way for this council to proceed. I just want to underline that my consistent testimony about the stated purpose of the bill was designed to call to everybody's attention that the performance appraisal does institute a second purpose. Mr. Furfaro: Mrs. Stoessel, I share with you that I clearly hear your point. Appraisals can be done by charter twice a year, they dont have to be done at salary time. We also as a council perhaps set different criteria .than what is 6 applied to us from the personnel department who really handles civil service status versus appointees. I just for today's purpose, I hear you on the differences. Mrs. Stoessel: Yes and I did have one other thought that I think we have said before and that is that the salary commission is setting salaries ceilings. They are not setting salaries for individuals except where the Council and the Mayor is concerned I believe and the Prosecuting Attorney. Mr. Furfaro: And I concur with you on that. It is a ceiling and there's certainly nothing that prevents us based on time, exposure and experience to bring somebody in that 90% of the ceiling so I hear you clearly on that. Mrs. Stoessel: Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you, thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify on this item? If not I'm going to call the meeting back to order. I'm asking for a deferral for all of the discussion that we had earlier. Councilwoman Yukimura. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order. Ms. Yukimura: In the purpose of the bill it says it's to amend this ordinance to conform chapter 3 of the county code with Section 29.03 of the county charter and said provisions provide the salary commission's findings shall be adopted by resolution by the commission and forwarded to the Mayor. These findings include evaluation requirements so they actually fit in the purpose of this bill and I think it's a question of we as the oversight legislative body and our concern with proper salary setting and what I consider best practice of tying it to performance evaluations. If you notice the wording which comes right out of the salary commission resolution is quite general and allows the appointing authority a lot of leeway. I am very much against one body setting very specific I think we need to give the appointing bodies leeway in setting, the criteria and this does not try to dictate the details of any appointing authority evaluation process. I'm proposing this because I think the management of our departments is perhaps the most important part of county governments. So the quality and the process by which we evaluate and sets salaries for department heads is a really important factor that affects everything in a county government. So that's why for your consideration I'm suggesting this and I would hope that we would at least give it it's full consideration before we decide whether to take it out or leave it in. And if it's something we're going to do anyway and it does fit the purpose of the bill then now is the time to at least consider it. Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Well that is if you agree that in fact the recommendations that came across from the salary .commission resolution was legal. They were tasked with setting the salaries and I'm not sure what happened and I'm not sure how they ended up with this whole big resolution that included performance evaluations. I'm not sure. I don't read the charter that way and this did come directly from the resolution but the resolution also required the council to amend the code and delete-eliminate that section 3.222.1. I do have an amendment that I'm hoping and I'm going to ask the courtesy to introduce that today because until that amendment gets on the floor there's really no discussion on that amendment. My amendment is what will remove the requirements for the evaluation and the bill that is on the floor today doesn't have that in, we did not 7 move that in. Mr. Bynum: I think we did. Mr. Rapozo: I don't believe we... Mr. Furfaro; Excuse me the floor is recognizing Mr. Rapozo, continue your comments. Mr. Rapozo: Unless it was moved on without me being here. The bill on the floor as I understand is with the evaluations on it. I mean somebody correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I remember. The amendment that I was going to propose which is what Mr. Morimoto has gone to retrieve. I'm going to ask if we can get that on the floor today then the discussion can begin on those components and why in fact those evaluation areas should be removed. Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair? Mr. Furfaro: I'm going to recognize Mr. Bynum first and I was letting Mr. Rapozo finish. Mr. Bynum you have the floor now. Mr. Bynum: Yeah I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. The bill currently before us does have the salary criteria in it correct? Mr. Rapozo: Correct. Mr. Bynum: Okay and you want to amend to remove that correct? Mr. Rapozo: Correct. Mr. Bynum: Okay so then having said that as long as we're on the same page. Mr. Furfaro: And I'm going to extend that courtesy for him today. Mr. Bynum: Sure that's fine can I... Mr. Furfaro: Yes you still have the floor. Mr. Bynum: So this is a very interesting discussion and we've had this before, I'm up to believe that it's a common expectation that salary increases are connected with a performance evaluation. I was happy when the salary commission included that in their provisions and I was happy to support putting it in this bill, not that I don't want to deal with the housekeeping issues as well. However in the course of this dialog there's been a whole series of questions. Did the salary commission have the authority to put that in there under the charter? Does the council have the authority to do it? Does the salary commission need to set the salaries or is it just the ceiling that gives latitude to the appointing authority? Those are all legal questions that I assume will .get answers from the county attorney of his opinion and even though I have stated my position I want to make sure we do it appropriately according to charter with the proper authority. So until I get those answers I think it's fine to bring Mr. Rapozo's amendment on to the floor but I would like to get that input from the county attorney prior to voting on 8 the amendment and the bill, but putting it on the floor is fine. Mr. Furfaro: Councilwoman Yukimura: Ms. Yukimura: ~ Yes because of the question about whether the salary commission has the authority we are asking that of the county attorney. So that's a very relevant question for this bill and it was raised by Mr. Stoessell. If the salary commission doesn't have the authority I'm assuming that the council has the authority then it would be very important for us to put it in an ordinance and here's the bill for an ordinance. So these are all really important questions and we listened to the dialog and that's why we're asking the questions so that we can get answers that give us guidance for acting. I don't believe that it's necessary to have Councilmember Rapozo's though I don't object to the amendment on the floor because the fact of this existing provision about salary increases and evaluations already brings the issue up and to me we would be remiss in voting on councilmember Rapozo's proposed amendment without proper input from the county attorney as to what our legal capabilities are and aren't. I think because the proposal is being brought forth partly because there's some thought that there's no capacity or the council doesn't have the capacity to do it at least that has been raised before. How do we vote on that unless we know what the answer is to that legal question? Mr. Furfaro: Okay Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: I think going back to the purpose of the introduction of the amendment was again to comply with the requirements of the mandates of a resolution and I have asked Mr. Morimoto to go get it so I can share it with all of you. I'm trying to get this bill in line with the charter in my opinion requires this language to be removed and then we start all over. The request for a county attorney's assistance on this matter Mr. Chair was how long. ago? Mr. Furfaro: It was a while. Mr. Rapozo: Awhile ago. I agree with Mr. Stoessell that there is in my opinion and we're trying to do the housekeeping measures and we can take up the other measures later, but I don't want to prolong this housekeeping measure because we're already way behind with the mandate of the resolution. Mr. Morimoto is here, so that is the purpose and I think we're going far from the charter. When we enter into this area of evaluations we get away from the original intent of Chapter 3, Article 2 of the code. So that's what this does, it just brings it back into line in line where it used to be before that resolution and trying to honor what that resolution called for which again this county failed and now we're just trying to fix it up. Amendments can be made throughout the process and I want to move on the requirement that we haven't done it several years and I think Mr. Morimoto has the resolution as well. Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Let me make sure that I have everybody clear on this. There is a plan to introduce an amendment from Mr. Rapozo today and I think it's important for the .amendment be there for what looks like a request from the county attorney to have further discussion on some legal matters. I'm going to be very candid here about a few things and this separation needs to occur in many organizations as it exists where there is a commission, a human resource body that makes recommendations about salary raises within the company. The County of Kauai is a hundred fifty eight million dollar corporation and we have a salary commission that makes recommendations to us that compares job duties and 9 responsibilities equally among all division heads. Such as where the Planning Director is versus where the County Clerk is where the Engineer is versus the Liquor Chairman and so forth. That is the role of having salary recommendations. In private industries if you are the General Manager of a 3 hundred room hotel you have this kind of responsibilities and your compensation ranges this. If you are the General Manager of a 1200 room hotel you have. a compensation raise that is this, that is the recommendations we get from the salary commission. Currently what we have in the way of performance reviews in this county is not acceptable to me. I have gone to the salary commission and I have talked about the use of upward appraisals of which I'm very pleased that this council has implemented with our own staff. We have suggested core values that we need to measure performance against in a total operating performance standard which we have implemented in a set of values. Are we ready to actually be able to say okay and twice a year we're going to measure our performance against the goal setting objectives and the values that we embrace? We're not there yet, we're getting there and hopefully other departments absorb this and it's not just the current performance evaluation we use. We also need to have an opportunity where our body sits down and gives reasonable feedback about accomplishments. You can't regulate that by a salary ordinance it has to be understood that's what we want to accomplish but we have to have a clear set of parameters that someone can be and they know what the measurements are and they stand accountable to be measured against that criteria. On that note I'm looking for a deferral but before I do I'm going to let Mr. Rapozo introduce his amendment then I would let you speak a second time Mr. Stoessell. Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, you all have a copy of the proposed amendment and before I make the motion I just want to reference Resolution No. 2009-01, and this was April 20, 2009 and it says that be further resolved the county council. shall introduce a bill repealing 3-2.1 Article 2 salaries of certain officers Article 3 salaries of the county council and Article 4 salaries of council services employees within 30 calendar days after the effect of this resolution. That's what was never done and that is what this is trying to do, it's trying to fix what was broken and from. that point move forward and again if this council feel that we should implement an ordinance that would require performance evaluations, that's fine I'm even interested in hearing it. But to restore the code our county code back to where it needs to based on a resolution that was done in 2009 I think that's the housekeeping measure that I talk about that I think we need to act on soon. With that I would move to approve floor amendment dated March 30, 2011. We need to move for the original bill I'm sorry. I move to approve 2395. Councilmember Rapozo moved for approval of Bill No. 2395, seconded by Councilmember Kawakami. Mr. Rapozo: I move to amend as circulated, this is a floor amendment dated March 30, 2011. Councilmember Rapozo moved to amend the bill as shown in the floor amendment attached hereto, seconded by Councilmember Kawakami. Mr. Furfaro: Seconded by Mr. Kawakami. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Again real briefly this is to bring the code into compliance and is really to satisfy the mandate that has been done in 2009 by the salary commission. 10 Mr. Furfaro: Okay, Councilwoman Yukimura then Councilmember Bynum. Ms. Yukimura: Yes I have no problem with introducing the amendment but I don't believe we can really vote on it because what it does is it eliminates totally the performance evaluation portion of it. I think unless we think performance evaluation is not important then we need to know whether we have the power to include it and we should include it and that requires a consultation. with the county attorney. Mr. Furfaro: .Thank you, Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: Well concurring with what Councilmember Yukimura just said I have a question for Mr. Rapozo if it's okay? Mr. Furfaro: You have the floor go right ahead. Mr. Bynum: This one provision C is something new isn't it? And I probably agree with it so but it... Mr. Rapozo: That is new. Mr. Bynum: Okay I just wanted to clarify that. Ms. Yukimura: Which one is new? Mr. Furfaro: C. Mr. Rapozo: Chapter 3 in the code never allowed, there was never a rule prohibiting it and what started the problem with this whole process was when they added the multi-year raises. That's what caused the problem and then they set up this fancy evaluation system to qualify for future raises and I think that's where everything went sideways prior to the resolution. They set the salaries which is what the charter required. Mr. Furfaro: Okay Mr. Bynum I'm back to you. Mr. Bynum: Yes thank you. I don't disagree and I understand with what the salary commission was intending to do but they didn't know and we didn't know that the economy was going to change dramatically and the whole world was going to change dramatically and retrospect even though I probably agree with this portion of the amendment that the salary commission should meet each time and not do a multi-year thing in the future. I think in concurrence I just want to point out that one part of provision is new and having said all of that I prefer that we defer this, get the discussion and then vote on all the amendments. Mr. Furfaro: Councilwoman Yukimura Ms. Yukimura: I would say that this is the C, is not housekeeping and it also arguably wasn't before public hearing so it actually... Mr. Furfaro: I didn't say it was housekeeping. Ms. Yukimura: No, no, no. 11 Mr. Furfaro: I only brought your attention to item C. Ms. Yukimura: No I'm not... right, right, but so it's certainly not housekeeping, it's a shift in policy, and also the amendment in Section 1 seeks. to narrow the purpose of the bill, because probably to make the arguments that the recommendations about evaluations. Although I believe personally that evaluations are part of salary so this is not just housekeeping. Mr. Furfaro: Well I don't plan to have it as anything more than introduced today.. Mr. Yukimura: I would urge that because I think we need to have the whole picture the week before we take action. Mr. Furfaro: I would think it would be fair for us to give the floor back to Mr. Rapozo since he introduced his amendment. Ms. Yukimura: Sure. Mr. Furfaro; I will have you come back again Mr. Stoessell in a moment. Do you have a copy of what Mr. Rapozo has introduced? Mr. Rapozo do you want the floor before I ask Mr. Stoessell to come up? Mr. Rapozo: Yes real quick and just in response I think you need to look at the purpose of the introduction and the purpose of the bill. The purpose was to tie back the code to the charter and what the charter requires of the salary commission. This chapter, chapter 3 specifically in the charter is to set salaries that's what it is, it's not to set salaries and .other issues pertaining to employment. It is to set salaries and the purpose of convening the salary commission was because the private sector had moved so far ahead of the public sector. It was felt at that time that they had to reconvene the salary commission, give them a task that would look at cost of living, the private sector pay scales and all of that and come up with a brand new pay structure and it was specifically dealing with salaries. That's what salary commissions do. H.R. Departments deal with H.R. they deal with evaluations; they deal with all of those things. The salary commission was specifically tasked with looking at the economic factors outside. All the indicators outside of the county would come up with a pay scale that was fair and equitable so we could recruit and retain the skilled employees and the department heads within the county and I was here when that happened so I know why. Since then out of one resolution it's expanded overnight to include how to dictate and how is that going to happen and I think that falls outside of the scope of the charter and that's just my opinion. Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you and if nobody minds I would like to suspend the rules again and ask Mr. Stoessel if he wants to come in on the amendment. Mr. Stoessel the rules are suspended. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Stoessel: Thank you for your indulgence Mr. Chairman, Horace Stoessel. I'm glad to see that that word salary got into Section 1 of this latest version of the amendment because that is what's in the charter. The commission is to submit its salary findings. I did not anticipate the direction this conversation would go among the council members and I would just like to briefly 12 speak to one point. I have reviewed the resolutions from the salary commission and every one of them either explicitly or less explicitly has told the council to turn its resolutions into ordinances. Mr. Rapozo's bill is the first time the council has responded to that and as I read it that has left this entire process in limbo for four years. I don't need to review all the questions now because you're familiar with the questions. I see this proposal from Mr. Rapozo as a first step only that a first step in straightening out this process and particularly and I started to say if you want to read it I will send it to you but I'm going to send it anyway. I have put together a statement about what amounts to the non communication between the salary commission and the council and I'm going to send that to you. I think it will feed into your considerations from this point forward. Thank you. Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Stoessel, Mr. Rapozo has a question for you. Mr. Rapozo: I just have a question and it's really for the viewing public and maybe some of the newer council members. What is your experience with the salary commission? Mr. Stoessel: My experience? Mr. Rapozo:. Yes. Mr. Stoessel: Well I served on the commission in 2004 and played a big part in creating the Article 29 that is now in the charter which came originally from the 2004 Charter Commission, I mean Salary Commission it went to the council and the council sent it to the charter commission who then put it on the ballot.I would add this word that I never claimed to be an expert about the numbers but I was very much concerned about the process. The salary process we had before this charter amendment in 2006 was totally unworkable. The main purpose of the amendment in 2006 was to create a workable process and I could talk 30 minutes about what's involved in that but that was my focus when I served on the commission. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you I just wanted to make sure that people understood as well as all of us here that you are not a newcomer to the salary commission, you actually were on that commission when it pioneered the charter amendment which led to what we now see in the charter. If there was any authority to go to, to question the intent of the charter, it would be you. Mr. Stoessel: Well I wouldn't claim to be an authority but I can talk about some facts. Mr. Rapozo: Well I do because you were there at the time so whenever we question why a law is law we go back to legislative intent. So you were there you were in on the commission at the time the commission determined that in fact we needed a charter amendment, it came to the county council which ended up on the ballot and got passed. Mr. Stoessel: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: So I would consider you an authority on at least the intent of the salary commission that presented this charter amendment. Mr. Stoessel: Yes and if I may follow that up I believe it's the case that everyone else involved in that process also. At that time (inaudible) that 13 we were authorizing the salary commission to come up with salaries. In 2004 or any other time you want to go back in the past that commission has been concerned with this issue of performance evaluation but... I'm going to stop there. Mr. Furfaro: Any more question? Okay I'm going to call the meeting back to order. There being no objections, the meeting proceeded as follows: Mr. Furfaro: Council members I have stated we have the amendment out for review and we also have a request from the county attorney to spend some time with Councilmember Rapozo but I'm really looking for a deferral on this at the present time. May I have a motion? Mr. Bynum: Ms. Yukimura: Move to defer. Seconded. Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. No further discussions on a deferral. All those in favor signify by saying "aye" Committee Members: "Aye" Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Bynum, Seconded by Councilmember Yukimura, and unanimously carried, Bill No. 2395 was deferred. There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 4:29 p.m. Res ectfully submitted ~~~C,! curie Chow Senior Clerk Typist APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on May 25, 2011 14