Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout072611_OPEN SESSION_MINUTES_DRAFT Kauai County Salary Commission Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION 9:00 A.M. July 26, 2011 With a quorum being present, the regular meeting of the Salary Commission of the County of Kaua'i was called to order by Acting Chair King at 9:05 a.m. at the Mo'ikeha Building, Liquor Conference Room No. 3. Members present: Mr. Charles King Mr. Robert Crowell Ms. Trinette Kaui Ms. Sheri Kunioka-Volz Mr. William Dahle Mr. Michael Machado Mr. Randy Finlay Others in attendance included: Mona Clark, Deputy County Attorney; John Isobe, Administrator; Paula Morikami, Administrative Aide; Mercedes Youn, Support Clerk. Audience members: Horace and Phyllis Stoessel Prior to the start of the meeting, County Clerk Peter Nakamura gave the oath of office to Mr. Randy Finlay. Approval of Minutes Meeting Minutes of November 3, 2010 Mr. Machado moved to approve the minutes as circulated. Ms. Kaui seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0. Election of Officers for 2011 Ms. Kaui moved to nominate Mr. King for the position of Chair; Mr. Dahle seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0. Ms. Kaui moved to nominate Mr. Crowell for the position of Vice-Chair; Ms. Kunioka- Volz seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0. Communications Chair King: Next business, we have three (3) communications to accept. SC 2011-01 Communication dated 11/01/10 from Malcolm Fernandez, Director of Personnel Services, to Actin- Chair Charles King and Members of the Salary Commission, listing_ those executives Appointees for whom performance evaluations were completed. SC 2011-02 Communication dated 11/03/10 from Acting Chair Charles King, to Council Chair "Kaipo"Bill Asing and Members of the County Council regarding Resolution No. 2010-1 that was adopted by the Salary Commission at its meeting on 11/03/10. SC 2011-03 Communication dated 04/23/11 from JoAnn A. Yukimura, Council Vice-Chair to Council Chair Jay Furfaro and Members of the County Council regarding the "2007-2008 Kaua'i Coun . Salary Commission Report" as it relates to performance based executive pay and Bill No. 2395. Chair King: The communication from Council Vice-Chair Yukimura to Council Chair Jay Furfaro has generated other communications that we can look at later. Chair King: I also have a communication dated 07/26/11 from Mr. Horace Stoessel pertaining to items 2011-02 and 2010-8 (a). Commissioners, you should have received the communication by email yesterday. Good morning Mr. Stoessel. Mr. Stoessel: Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Salary Commission. I think that this is a good place to say what I would like to say. My written testimony relates to several items on the agenda. The main reason that I came to the meeting today, is to ask the Commissioners if they had any questions about my written testimony, which I presume that you have a copy of. But before I do that I would like to make a few comments by the way of background. The Salary Resolution 2010-1 was adopted by the Salary Commission on November P, 2010. This Resolution that is currently in effect provides for salary increases for the Mayor and certain Executive positions in his Administration effective last July 1St Charter Section 311 requires that the Council appropriate these increases by ordinance. However, the Council has not done so. Normally, the increase would have been appropriated during the annual budget process. But the Mayor and Council took no account of the Resolution when they prepared the budget for the following fiscal year. According to this agenda, the Mayor is apparently asking this Commission to defer his salary increase by presumably adopting a new resolution, even if the Commission is belated in acting to defer the Mayor's increase. The Council would still be facing the requirement to appropriate the increases for other administrative personnel. I would like to add that I am not here to advocate for salary increases; I am here to advocate for following the Charter. Do you have any questions? 2 1 P a g e Chair King: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Stoessel? Chair King: Mr. Stoessel, are you addressing your questions to this Commission, as opposed to the County Council? Mr. Stoessel: No, what I'm asking is, if you had any questions for me. Chair King: Okay. Thank you. Chair King: So your position for the Salary Commission is to follow the Kaua'i County Charter by not allowing for budgeting for the salary increases. Is that correct? Mr. Stoessel: That is not quite what I was trying say. I am not asking the Salary Commission to do anything. I was just attempting to supply some background information to hopefully assist your understanding of where things are right now. The Salary Commission did nothing to rescind the Resolution adopted by this body last November, and therefore it is now the responsibility of the Council to appropriate the salaries in that Resolution, but has yet to do so. Chair King: I understand now, and thank you. Chair King: I think that we will try to rectify things as we move forward. We won't be able to rectify the appropriation, but we will be able to rectify the need for it. Again, thank you, Mr. Stoessel, for your testimony. Chair King: Commissioners, we have a communication here for review and to perhaps take action on. Ms. Clark: Just a point of procedure, you probably should vote on receiving the communications. Chair King: Okay, thank you. So can I have a motion to receive the communications including Mr. Stoessel's written testimony? Ms. Kaui moved to receive the communication dated 11/01/10 from Mr. Malcolm Fernandez; communication dated 11/03/11 from Acting Chair King to Council Chair Jay Furfaro; and Mr. Stoessel's written testimony dated 07/26/11. Mr. Machado seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0. Business: SC 2011-04 Communication dated 06/17/11 from Sherman Shiraishi Chair of the Charter Review Commission to Vice-Chair Charlie King and Members of the Salary Commission requesting comments relating to various proposed Charter Amendments to Article XXIX Salary Commission; Article XXIII General Provisions; and Article VII Mayor. 3 1 P a g e Chair King: As you can see the proposed changes are detailed in Exhibit A of the proposed Charter Amendments to Article XXIX Salary Commission; Article XXIII General Provisions; and Article VII Mayor. Mr. Dahle: Is there a proposal to take some action this item? Chair King: I think that since he wrote to us, a response would be appropriate on whether the Salary Commission has any concerns with the Proposed Amendments. Mr. Dahle: Is he asking us to go beyond the scope of what is being proposed? Chair King: I don't think so. Mr. Dahle: Okay. I was under the impression that the Charter Review Commission had deferred any final action on the portion relating to the salaries because they haven't heard from us. Chair King: He just wrote this in June. Mr. Dahle: And we just received it yesterday. Chair King: The proposal seems in order to me. Mr. Dahle: I think that they actually embelish what's in the Charter now. Chair King: Embelish...is that like improve? Mr. Dahle: The crossword puzzle said it was. Chair King: Does this need a motion Mona? Ms. Clark: What would the motion be? Chair King: To write back to them and say that the Salary Commission does not have any issues on the language to the Proposed Amendments Relating to the Salaries of County Officers. Would we have to make a motion to do that? Ms. Clark: I guess yes, you'll need a motion. Chair King: Okay. So I suppose the motion would be something like "The Salary Commission has no issues with the language proposed by the Charter Review Commission and supports the proposed changes". Mr. Isobe: Mr. Chair if you don't mind, can I say a few things? Chair King: Certainly. 4 1 P a g e Mr. Isobe: For the record, my name is John Isobe and I'm the Administrator for the Office of Boards and Commissions. We apologize for the timing of the request from the Charter Review Commission but as Commissioner Dahle indicated, the Charter Review Commission did defer this matter pending comments from the Salary Commission. At the recent meeting of the Charter Review Commission, Chair Shiraishi asked that I convey to the Salary Commission additional information based on the discussions yesterday. I would like to point out that in Exhibit A, under Section 29.03. Resolution. The Charter Review Commission is considering an additional revision to the existing language in Section 29.03 of the Charter by adding the phrase "or for oaccoting a salary" at the end of the last sentence. So now the sentence should read"Provided however, elected officers may voluntarily accept a salary lower that the maximum figure established by the salary commission for their position, or forego accepting ir. As I have mentioned before, the Charter Review Commission has deferred this matter pending a response and or recommendations from the Salary Commission. Mr. Dahle: Is that specifically for the Salary Commission the phrase "or may forego"? Mr. Isobe: Yes and the intent of the Commission were basically for clarity. Currently, the Charter language states that the appointing authority has the ability to set a salary lower than the salaries the Salary Commission establishes. The elected officials have no real appointing authority; their appointing authority has been determined to be the electorate. So, short of asking every single voter whether the elected official can accept a salary lower, this provision would now give the elected officials the ability to unilaterally accept a salary lower than that established by the Salary Commission. In addition, some of the members wanted language inserted into the Charter to say that they could accept no salary. In other words, if John Isobe were elected to the County Council, I could say I would forego the salary, as I do not believe it is necessary for the County to pay me for my services. That is what this Amendment would effectively do. The initial Amendment would allow me to accept a salary up to a dollar, but not to forego the salary completely. Chair King: Thank you Mr. Isobe. May I now have a motion? Mr. Dahle: Is there anything else that needs to be changed in the Proposed Amendment? Chair King: Nothing from their side. Mr. Dahle: Would this also include the comments under the General Provisions and the Mayor? And are we talking about the three (3) subject matters such as the Salary Commission, General Provisions, and the Mayor. This looks more like housekeeping than anything else. Chair King: I agree. Mr. Dahle: So our comments would relate to the whole package? 5 1 P a g e Mr. Isobe: Yes. Chair King: Mercedes, can you please read the motion. Ms. Youn: The motion suggested is as follows: The Salary Commission has no issues with the language proposed by the Charter Review Commission and supports the proposed Charter Amendments. Mr. Dahle: That's correct. Mr. Dahle moved that the Salary Commission has no issues with the language proposed by the Charter Review Commission, and supports the proposed Charter Amendments. Ms. Kaui seconded the motion. Chair King: Thank you. Is there any further discussions? Ms. Kaui: I just have one question pertaining under Article VII Mayor, Section 7.03. Compensation It's about the Mayor having a $19,000 per annum; is that just a base that... (Inaudible). Mr. Dahle: I think that is the number that was included in the original Charter back in 1969. Chair King: Okay. Mr. Isobe: The proposal is to delete that reference in the Charter for purposes of updating and clarifying. Chair King: Are there any other questions? Hearing none, those that are in favor of the motion please indicating by saying aye... those opposed? Motion carried 7:0. Mr. Dahle: Can I ask a question that is related to this but does not require any action? Chair King: Sure. Mr. Dahle: The Charter Review Commission is also going to hear from the public about other issues that are not related to this. If I have any comments about this issue, would I need approval from this body, even though my comments wouldn't represent the thoughts of this body, in order to testify before the Charter Review Commission? Ms. Clark: I think that if you are appearing just as an individual you don't have to state your representative capacity, and then you may testify as an individual. 6 1 P a g e Mr. Dahle: Cool...that would be the feeling for everyone else right? Ms. Clark: Yes. Chair King: Okay. The next item of business is the three (3) separate communications. As you noticed, some of the information refers back to stuff that the Commission had previously looked at. SC 2011-08 Discussion and decision-making on establishing the framework and guidelines for future salary increases. Deferred on 04/01/10) a)Bill No. 2395, Draft 1, A Bill for an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 3, of the Kaua'i County Code 1987, as Amended, Relating to the Salaries of County Officers and Employees. b) Opinion dated 03/11A I from Deputy County Attorney Mona Clark to Jay Furfaro, Council Chair regarding the authority of the County Council and the Salary Commission to establish procedures for performance evaluations as a condition of an appointee's raise. (Opinion was released to the public by unanimous vote at the April 20, 2011 Council meeting.) c) Communication dated 07/15/11 from Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr., to Chair Charlie King and Members of the Salary Commission requesting that the Commission take measures to defer the Mayor's July 1, 2011 salary increase until such time as economic and budgetary conditions improve. Chair King: In anticipation of making a Resolution based on the three (3) communications, I have asked Mr. Isobe to draw up a draft Resolution 2011-1 that we can look at later. For now, let's just look at the communications. I will need a motion to receive item(a) for the record which is a Bill for an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 3, of the Kaua'i County Code, as Amended, Relating to the Salaries of County Officers and Employees. If you look on the second and third page, the proposed additions are underlined. The newest addition is the position for the Boards and Commissions Administrator. Also, in the draft the salary amounts have been eliminated and at this time, the Salary Commission needs to set the salary for the Boards and Commissions Administrator. We need to receive the communication before continuing further discussion. Mr. Dahle: So the motion is just to receive Bill No. 2395, Draft 1. Chair King: Yes. Mr. Dahle moved to receive the Bill No. 2395, Draft 1. Ms. Kunioka-Volz seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0. 71 Chair King: The next item is Item(b)which is more of an informational piece. It is an opinion response from Deputy County Attorney Mona Clark to Council Chair Jay Furfaro regarding the authority of the Council and the Salary Commission to establish procedures for performance evaluations as a condition of an appointee's raise. Chair King: This item will be good as a reference material. Chair King: The last item is a communication dated 07/15/11 from Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr., requesting that his proposed salary increase be deferred. This is the salary increase that the Salary Commission deferred to July 1St, 2011. The proposed Draft Resolution 2011-1 in its entirety essentially moves the post salary increase effective from July 1St, 2011 to July 1 st, 2013. Mr. Dahle: May I ask for a brief recess so we can review the Draft Resolution 2011-1 because it looks like we have a couple of inversion issues? Chair King: Okay. I would also like to point out that there is an addition in the proposed Draft Resolution 2011-1 that lists the Boards and Commissions Administrator. If we decide to adopt the Resolution today, it wouldn't require a meeting in the near future. Ms. Clark: Chair King, I don't think that you can adopt it today because the Draft Resolution 2011-1 is not listed on the agenda. Chair Kind: Okay. Ms. Clark: Mr. Chair, I do think that it is very important for the Salary Commission to adopt the Resolution sooner rather than later and would advise the Salary Commission to schedule a meeting and attend to this specifically and then act on it. Chair King: Even if the main topic is on today's agenda? Ms. Clark: Well, the agenda states "Establishing the framework and guidelines for future salary increases". It really doesn't say to adopt a Resolution, and I don't feel that the public were adequately notified. Chair King: Okay, can we consider this as a framework for future salary increases? Ms. Clark: I think that you can discuss it and then you should schedule a meeting with a proper notice for the public. Mr. Dahle: Are referring to Resolution 2011-1? Chair King: Yes. So is a recess appropriate to review the Draft Resolution 2011-1. 8 1 P a g e Ms. Clark: Yes. Chair King: Then I call for a 15 minute recess. Meeting recessed at 9:35 a.m. Meeting reconvened at 10:05 a.m. Chair King: I would like to call the meeting back to order. Chair King: Mr. Isobe,you were referring to the salary inversion; are you referring to the three (3)positions or the five (5)positions listed draft Resolution 2011-1? Mr. Isobe: The inversion exists but it depends on how you look at the inversion. For example, if you say that the First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney should be comparably paid to the First Deputy County Attorney, then there is an inversion between the Deputy County Attorney and the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. The remaining three (3)positions also listed in the Resolution are the County Clerk, Prosecuting Attorney, and the County Auditor. Those positions can potentially make more than the Mayor, assuming that you freeze the Mayor's salary as he is requesting. In essence, the Mayor will no longer be the highest paid appointed employee in this Salary Resolution simply because those three (3)positions were granted pay raises when the administration's salaries were frozen. Ms. Kunioka-Volz: Why are those positions are on a separate schedule? Mr. Isobe: The Commission and our office recommended that they divide it up to show who has the appointing authority. For example, the Council has the appointing authority over the Clerk, Auditor, and the Deputy County Clerk. The Prosecutor has the appointing authority over the deputies as well as those positions listed under the Prosecutor. There are three (3) elected officials in the County which are the County Council, Mayor, and the Prosecutor. For clarity, we separated the positions because at the time the Salary Commission had decided to freeze the salaries for the Administration but granted the salaries for the Prosecutor's Office and the County Council. Mr. Dahle: So, there was a request from the Prosecuting Attorney asking for more money to have the ability to hire and retain. So, the salaries that are in the previous resolution are what they are getting now? Mr. Isobe: That is correct. Mr. Dahle: Is the inversion going to affect the salaries for the six (6)positions that are currently listed in the Resolution? Mr. Isobe: No, all that I am pointing out is that at the time the freeze was being contemplated for a shorter period of time. Now that you are moving it out further, there is still this issue about 9 1 P a g e inversion, and does this body want to deal with that issue or not? I am not saying that you need to do anything. It's for full disclosure so that you may understand. As Commissioner Dahle has indicated, some of the members were not here when those decisions were being made. Mr. Dahle: There is no law or policy that says that this inversion requires that the salary be changed. Mr. Isobe: There is no law,but there is a policy stated in the Charter. The policy is the over- arching guidelines under which the Commission should be making its decision. Ms. Kunioka-Volz: Did we receive any correspondence from the Prosecutor or the Council Chair inquiring about the salaries? Mr. Isobe: No, at this point in time we have not solicited their input. I was just pointing it out. However, should the Commission wish to have the conversation, I would need to know when the next meeting will be so that I can request them to consider attending the next Salary Commission meeting. Mr. Dahle: Well,we would still need to determine what is fair and equitable under the circumstances, right? And I suppose that would require we know how many employees have retired that was up at the high inversion type levels that are no longer in the system. Chair King: Another way of doing it is taking it to 2013. Mr. Dahle: Actually, it would be 2012, right? Because we would still have to submit something to the Council at the end of 2012 for it to be effective in 2013. Ms. Kaui: Not if Resolution 2011-1 is adopted, because the freeze will remain until July 1st, 2013. Mr. Dahle: Okay. Mr. Isobe: If the Salary Commission chooses to adopt Draft Resolution 2011-1 in its entirety, and unless the Commission wishes to do further refinements, the new salaries will take effect on July 1st, 2013. And as Chair King has pointed out, the inversion will then take care of itself meaning that there will be no salary increases for the Prosecuting Attorney, County Clerk and the County Auditor and the salaries for the group will be moved up, which would align it. However, if it's left at 2012, the inversion will continue. Mr. Machado: Is the inversion problem caused by the difference of what it would take to make the Mayor's salary as opposed to other salaries? Or does the inversion problem have to do with the workers that are underneath the... (Inaudible) Mr. Isobe: There are two (2) issues. The first issue was something that the previous Commission was trying to correct in which some of the Civil Service employees were making 101Page more than the Department Heads. In trying to correct those deficiencies, keep in mind that the appointing officials did not received any pay raises for least ten(10)to fifteen(15)years. The Salary Commission put in place a Resolution which stated that the appointed officials and elected officials would have step up raises. The inversion issue that is being pointed out here today is something that the Commission originally determined it to be,which is similar to the County Attorney and the Prosecuting Attorney. These positions are not being compensated simply because a decision was made to freeze the salaries for the Administration but not for the Legislative Branch and Prosecutor's Office. As others were consistently being moved up... what was happening is the Administration salaries were still frozen. At the time when this was occurring, it was anticipated that the freeze would be for one (1)year. Now the freeze is moving out to 2013. I am just pointing out that the circumstances have changed and I am not suggesting that the Commission change anything. We are just making the Commission aware that the circumstances have changed and should the Commission decide to freeze the salaries up to 2013 that the inversion would exist for multiple years as opposed to just one (1)year. Please keep in mind that there is no legal requirement which states that the Salary Commission should change the Resolution other than an over-arching policy which assumes that the salaries should be set fairly. Mr. Stoessel: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a couple of points on the subject. First of all I believe that it would be more accurate to use the word"disparity"rather than "inversion". The inversion was appropriate when they were talking about the connection between Civil Service and the appointed officials. However, this is something that only involves the appointed officials and I think that it would be less confusing to simply say that there is a disparity that you may need to be aware of. I will very briefly tell you how that disparity came about. The Commission, in 2007, established a four(4) step raise that would accumulatively be not more than 50% and a 25% followed by three (3) 7%raises. What is on discussion here is that last of the 7% raises that would have gone into effect at the end of 2009. However, early in 2009 the Mayor asked the Commission to defer the last 7%raise until the end of this year. The Commission initially balked...they wouldn't go along with it and eventually towards the end 2009, certain Boards and Commissions who appoint Department Heads went along with the Mayor. The Commission than agreed to defer wages from 2009 to 2010 and then last November the Commission deferred that raise again to July 1 of this year. I believe that I'm correct in saying that the Prosecuting Attorney at that time lobbied to keep the 7% in place for that department and the Commission went along with it. The Council, or at least some members of the Council,were very frustrated because when they received the Resolution from the Salary Commission...I think that you will find that when you 111Page talk to them that they also wanted to defer these three (3)positions in the Legislative Department. But they were unable to do so; the time frame did not allow them to. So that is some of the background of what this Commission is talking about. Ms. Kunioka-Volz: Thank you. Chair King: Thank you again, Mr. Stoessel. Chair King: We have the frame work for the Resolution which defers the Administrative salaries until July 1, 2013. We should also add the position for Boards and Commissions Administrator. I think that we can pencil it in under the 12/1/08 column and place the amount for $96,000. If we were to take the 7% raise into 07/01/13 the amount would be $102,720. Mr. Crowell: Where did you get the initial date of 12/01/08 from? Chair King: From Mr. Isobe. Chair King: Next the Commission needs to determine whether we would want to do something about the different sets of positions that either has a salary inversion or salary disparity. I feel that we need to have more discussion. Ms. Kunioka-Volz: I have a comment/question on Section E. that relates to the performance evaluations. It states that the Director of Personnel shall prepare for approval by the Mayor a written performance evaluation, procedures and methodology, and coordinate the performance evaluation process for all non-elected officers and employees listed in this Resolution. Isn't that a direct conflict that the Director of Personnel is on this listing because he will be writing or creating the specific performance evaluations? Ms. Clark: I don't think so. It's only for the procedures and only the appointing authority can change the substance to decide whether they want additional criteria so it's not really in his direct control. Ms. Kunioka-Volz: So it's just for the procedures? Ms. Clark: Yes. It is only for the procedures... he is not doing any substantive work as far as the performance evaluations are concerned. Ms. Kunioka-Volz: Okay. Mr. Dahle: Just a point for correction, the Administrative Assistant will now be listed as Managing Director. Ms. Clark: That change was made in the Charter. Mr. Crowell: What is the reason for listing the Boards and Commissions Administrator in the Resolution? I guess the question I should be asking is whether the Boards and Commissions 121Page Administrator will become a permanent position in the Mayor's cabinet. And why are we looking at that position now? Ms. Clark: It was added by an Ordinance to Section 3.2. 1 imagine that due to the timing that is why that position was not included in the Resolution. I also believe that the title was called Administrative Assistant for both Gary Heu's position and John's position. Is that correct? Mr. Isobe: I am assuming that the reason why the County Council included the Boards and Commissions Administrator position into the Ordinance was because the Office of Boards and Commissions and the position of the Administrator are now a Chartered function. In answering Mr. Crowell's question that every Mayor, from then on, shall have a Boards and Commission Administrator in his cabinet, the answer is yes. Ms. Clark: To add clarification, that position was added to Section 3.2 of the Ordinance. Mr. Crowell: Mr. Chair, what was your calculation again? Chair King: It was $102,720. Chair King: So we have before us a proposed Draft Resolution 2011-1 that needs consideration. However, at this time we still don't know what we want to do with the disparity and the Prosecuting Attorney. Mr. Crowell: I would like to go back to the Boards and Commissions Administrator. The reason why I wrote the amount down is for discussion purposes. Treating that position similar to the Director of Economic Development or the Director of Liquor Control and I am proposing that the salary would be $103,041. Chair King: I am going off of what the current salary is for the Boards and Commissions Administrator. Mr. Crowell: Okay. Chair King: May I ask one question, John? On the last page of the Draft Resolution 2011-1, 1 noticed that Section 2 is crossed out that would delete the Mayor's ability to regulate the salaries by taking it out of the budget and Section 3 is renamed Section 2. Mr. Isobe: There were multiple conversations and discussions surrounding that particular provision-. As a result, to alleviate or eliminate any confusion relative to how the salary resolution should be implemented, and whether or not it is implemented via the budget or as a stand-alone document as it currently reads. What the feeling was that if you're going to defer the salaries up to 2013, then in respect to the budget the salaries should remain frozen up through the end of this fiscal year which began on July 1St. However, if the Commission wants to extend the salary freeze even further there would be ample time to meet and make a decision. Mr. Finlay: I would like to know the Mayor's opinion on that for striking out that section. 131Page Mr. Isobe: Once this Commission establishes its next meeting, our office will request for a representative from the Mayor's office be present at the meeting. Chair King: Okay. Chair King: Let me get clear on what this Commission needs to do in order to have something to present at the next meeting. Ms. Clark: I think that the Commission should agenda the Draft Resolution 2011-1; that way it would allow ample time for public notification and then the Commission may adopt or amend Resolution 2011-1 at its next meeting. Chair King: Thank you. Ms. Clark: I think I can provide some clarity on Section 2. I think that the Charter states that the appointing body can decrease the salary or set it at a lower level set forth in the Salary Resolution. Section 2 should be read in conjunction with the Charter and not expand the authority of the Charter for any other department. Therefore, the Mayor and the Council may control the budget independently. Mr. Finlay: I think this addresses what Mr. Stoessel was saying that the Salary Commission should establish the guidelines. Ms. Clark: I think that there are various factors that played into the scenarios. One factor is that the Mayor appoints most of his Directors and certain Commissions appoints their respective Department Heads. The Mayor has the ability to set the salaries lower than what is set forth in the Salary Resolution and if he does that, you don't have to budget for a higher amount. Likewise, if you go to the Commissions and they agree that they should be budgeted at a lower level, they can do that. Mr. Finlay: So this is just a redundant statement of what the Charter already says. Ms. Clark: Yes. Mr. Finlay: I understand. Chair King: So let's just place the Draft Resolution 2011-ton the next meeting agenda. Mr. Finlay: When I was sitting on the Cost Control Commission, the Prosecuting Attorney came to testify and I think it was during a time when he was lobbying to hire and retain some Attorneys. I believe that a Prosecuting Attorney is worth a little bit more than a County Attorney. Based on their skills there should be a disparity between the positions. Ms. Kaui: Chair,just for housekeeping purposes the signature line also needs to be changed. 141Page Ms. Kunioka-Volz: Are we also changing the wording inversion to disparity? Chair King: Do we need to take action on this? Ms. Clark: I think that you should take action on the various communications listed under CCC 2011-08. Chair Kiniz: We need to receive all of the communications listed under CCC 2010-08. Ms. Kaui moved to receive all three (3) communications listed under 2010-08. Mr. Dahle seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0. Ms. Clark: Chair King, I think that the Commission should set a date/time for the next meeting so that you can specifically discuss the Draft Resolution 2011-1. Chair King: Okay. The next meeting is set for Friday, August 5, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Isobe: Just for clarification, does the Commission still want a representative from the Mayor's office at the next meeting? Mr. Finlay: No, Ms. Clark has provided enough information. Mr. Isobe: Okay. Should we notify the Prosecuting Attorney and or the County Council about Draft Resolution 2011-1 in an event that they may have some comments? Chair King: Yes, I think that they should be made aware. Mr. Isobe: Okay, thank you. Mr. Dahle: Should we also request for information on the disparities from the Personnel Department since the concern was that the non-elected officials were making more money than their respective Department Heads? Mr. Crowell: I think that that issue has been resolved. Mr. Dahle: Okay, let's not think about that. Announcements Next Meeting-Friday, August 5, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. at the Mo'ikeha Building. Liquor Conference Room No. 3. Chair Kind: May I have a motion to adjourn? Mr. Dahle moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 a.m. Ms. Kaui seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0. 151Page Submitted by: Mercedes Youn, Staff Support Clerk Reviewed and Approved by: Charles King, Chair Approved as circulated on: August 5, 2011 161Page