Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout080511_MINUTES_DRAFT Kauai County Salary Commission Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION 9:00 a.m. August 5, 2011 DRAFT With a quorum being present, the regular meeting of the Salary Commission of the County of Kaua'i was called to order by Chair Charles King at 9:05 a.m. at the Mo'ikeha Building, Liquor Conference Room No.3. Members present: Charles King, Chair Robert Crowell, Vice-Chair Trinette Kaui Sheri Kunioka-Volz William Dahle Randy Finlay Absent/excused: Member Michael Machado. Others in attendance included: Karen Matsumoto, Personnel Program Analyst; Mona Clark, Deputy County Attorney; John Isobe, Administrator; Paula Morikami. Administrative Aide; and Mercedes Youn, Support Clerk. Approval of Minutes Meeting Minutes of July 26, 2011 Mr. Dahle moved to approve the minutes as circulated. Ms. Kaui seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Chair King: We need to add to the agenda and receive the following three (3) communications: 1. Communication dated 07/27/11 from the Salary Commission to Chair Sherman Shiraishi and Members of the Charter Review Commission, supporting the proposed language changes to the Kaua'i County Charter, Article XXIX, Salary Commission; Article XXIX General Provisions; and Article VII Mayor. 2. Communication dated 07/27/11 from Malcolm Fernandez, Director of Personnel Services, regarding a recommendation for setting the salary for the Boards and Commissions Administrator. 3. Communication dated 08/05/11 from Council Vice-Chair JoAnn A. Yukimura to Chair Charles King and Members of the Salary Commission, regarding Proposed Resolution 2011-1 relating to the Salaries of Certain Officers and Employees of the County of Kaua'i. Ms. Kaui moved to add to the agenda and receive all three (3) communications for the record. Mr. Crowell seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. Business: SC 2010-09 Discussion and decision-making on a draft Resolution No. 2011-1 Relatin to Salaries of Certain Officers and Employees of the County of Kaua'i. Chair King: Our only piece of business today is the draft Resolution 2011-1 that was discussed at the last meeting. Let's first discuss the letter from Council Vice-Chair JoAnn Yukimura. In her first comment it seems to be just a statement pertaining to the performance evaluations. The second is a suggestion that the subject resolution includes salary levels for present and future and excludes any pay schedules from the past; this is something that we can consider in the future. As for her third point, I'm not sure what it relates to because she talks about giving the Mayor the authority to postpone the salary increases? Isn't that what our draft is doing...postponing the salary increases. I think that she maybe suggesting that we add a provision to Resolution 2011- 1. Mr. Crowell: I have a question relating to that. On July 1, 2011, and maybe John can answer the question, in our last resolution it states that the appointees would receive their salary increases effective Julyl, 2011. Did they receive the increase? Or was it postponed? Mr. Isobe: It is my understanding at this point and time that all of the proposed salary increases effective July 1, 2011 are in limbo because it is based on the Mayor's desire to maintain the existing salaries and take into consideration the actions of the Salary Commission relating to draft Resolution 2011-1. If the Commission decides that the salaries should be increased, the County Administration would then begin to receive the increase,but at this point the salaries are in limbo. Mr. Crowell: So what you're saying is that the salaries didn't automatically go up? Mr. Isobe: Not yet. Mr. Dahle: Does that mean that the Mayor has issued an order to freeze the salaries, and does he have the authority to do that? Mr. Isobe: No, not at this time. Mr. Dahle: Okay. Mr. Isobe: I think that was the overriding question that was discussed at the Commission's last meeting in that the Resolution that was passed previously by this body which states that the Council and the Mayor could freeze the wages based on the budget and in fact this current budget does not provide for any salary increases. Another question that arose was whether or not 2 1 P a g e the Commission's Resolution which states that the Council and Mayor could freeze the salaries based on the budget was an improper statement or not because only the appointing authorities can freeze the salaries. The Mayor has the authority to freeze the salaries of all of the Department Heads who are under his jurisdiction. For an example, the Mayor has the authority to freeze the salary of the County Engineer but he does not have the authority to unilaterally freeze the salary of the Planning Director. But rather than go through the steps as we did during the furloughs, which was to seek each appointing authority's approval to freeze the salaries, the Administration decided to wait for the Salary Commission's decision on the draft Resolution 2011-1. Chair King: So in other words,the salaries that we are setting are simply maximums and that it doesn't have to go up,but it's a matter of ease so that you don't have to approach each Commission. Mr. Isobe: Yes. None of the Commissions have made any decisions on whether to raise the salaries or freeze the salaries. Chair King: Okay. Mr. Dahle: So what are they getting paid now? Mr. Isobe: They are currently being paid at the 2008 salary level and less of what is being proposed for July 1. Mr. Dahle: So what they're getting is what the Resolution provides? Mr. Isobe: Correct. Mr. Dahle: Okay. Mr. Isobe: So that we are clear,what the Administrative Department Heads are getting paid are the salaries that are listed under the date 12/01/08 in the Resolution. Mr. Dahle: Okay, thank you. Chair King: Moving on to number 4. I am not sure... it seems like she is suggesting different dates. Mr. Crowell: She seems to be referring to dates that I don't see. Ms. Kunioka-Volz: Yes. Mr. Finlay: I think what she is referring to are the dates in the draft Resolution 2011-1 under Article 2 Salaries of the Prosecuting Attorney and Deputies. If you look, there is a 12/01/09 date. 3 1 P a g e Ms. Kaui: Right, and that is already in effect and that is where the disparity is. Mr. Finlay: So what I think that Councilwoman Yukimura is suggesting is to change the 12/01/09 date to 12/01/12 to be consistent but I believe that it is too late. Ms. Kaui: Yes,you're right we cannot retro it. Chair King: John, the six (6)positions that are highlighted in the draft Resolution 2011-1, the ones with the disparities, are not included in Article 1 Salaries of Certain Administrative Officers and Employees (b) of the draft Resolution. Mr. Isobe: There are three (3) groups of positions. The Administration, Prosecuting Attorney, and the County Council. Chair King: Okay. So we are not suggesting any increases for those positions; we are just considering where they are right now and that is the only reason why they are in the Resolution. Mr. Finlay: I think since they have already been granted the raises, it's too late to change the benchmark date and we have to let it stay the way it is written in the Resolution. Chair King: Right. Mr. Crowell: And the assumption is that the raises are already budgeted as part of the current budget. Mr. Isobe: Yes, I believe that is a true statement. Mr. Finlay: It sounds like this Resolution really addresses a lot of Councilwoman Yukimura's concerns. Because with the adoption of draft Resolution 2011-1, it pushes the pay raises back which solidifies what the Mayor has decided to do without having to issue an executive order because the Resolution will be already in place. Chair King: Thanks for catching that Randy. Chair King: Moving on the numbers five (5) and six (6) it seems to be just statements relating to the performance reviews. Chair King: I am not quite sure about number seven(7). Who is the appointing authority for the County Auditor? Mr. Isobe: I must admit that Councilmember Yukimura does raise an interesting point. Because as I understand it...I will just read Section 32.01 of the County Code that pertains to the County Auditor. (A.) There is established within the legislative branch an office of the County Auditor, to be headed by a County Auditor who shall be appointed by the County Council and shall serve for a period of six(6)years, and thereafter,until a successor is appointed. The Salary 4 1 P a g e Commission shall fix the salary of the county auditor. The County Council, by two-thirds vote of its membership, may remove the County Auditor from office at any time for cause. Mr. Dahle: That is what she referring to when she says "disconnect"? Mr. Isobe: The way that the salary ordinance is currently set up, it shows that the County Auditor is appointed by the County Council. However, the interesting thing is that the Office of the County Auditor philosophically has been set up to be independent of any entity. I believe what Councilwoman Yukimura is trying to say when she uses the term"disconnect" is that the Auditor's office is suppose to be independent of any entity, but then who should determine whether or not that individual gets a raise? Whoever provides the raise for that person would then be beholding to that entity or individual. One thing that this Commission may want to consider is to have the County Auditor evaluated similar to that of the County Attorney. If you look at how the County Attorney is being evaluated, the County Attorney's position is the only position in the County that requires confirmation by the County Council. The previous Commissions have said that the County Attorney should be evaluated by both the County Council and the Mayor. So you may want to take the County Auditor and insert that position under the same evaluation criteria where both branches of government can evaluate the performance. Chair King: Is the County Attorney's salary set by the County Council? Mr. Isobe: The salary is set by the Mayor and the performance evaluation of that position would then trigger whether or not a salary increase should be proposed. Chair King: I would think the Mayor should be the one approving the salary. Ms. Clark: I don't think that there is anything in the Charter that gives the Administrative branch any control over the County Auditor. Mr. Isobe: That's true. Ms. Clark: You would have to change the Charter to allow that authority. Mr. Dahle: John, you were reading from the Charter? Mr. Isobe: Yes. Chair King: I suggest that we refer the matter to the Charter Review Commission to look at. Mr. Isobe: I can bring the matter to the Charter Review Commission. Chair King: Okay. 5 1 P a g e Mr. Finlay: I would certainly think that for today's discussion we need to get draft Resolution 2011-1 adopted to support the actions that are happening right now. The pay raise for the County Auditor is going to be so far down in the future that maybe this Commission can discuss that at our next meeting. We need to get this Resolution going. Chair King: I think that we do have the time to address that in the future. Mr. Finlay: I would like to move that we put the issue of the County Auditor's performance review and salary forward to the next meeting and not include it in draft Resolution 2011-1. Chair Kind: Would you like to add to that motion to refer the issue to the Charter Review Commission as to whether a Charter amendment should be considered to revise or clarify who is the appointing authority that determines the salary for the County Auditor? Mr. Finlay: Yes. Mr. Dahle: I would like to second that motion. Motion carried 6:0. Chair King: The next thing we need to do is to fill in the salary amounts for the Boards and Commissions Administrator under 12/01/08 and 07/01/13. 1 believe that the last time I suggested that the current salary amount should be set at$96,000 with a 7%raise bringing it to $102,720. The communication from Mr. Fernandez indicates that Personnel Services felt that the position is comparable to that of the Director of Economic Development, Director of Housing and Director of Liquor Control and that the salary amount should fall in the $103,041 range. With the 07/01/13 increase it should amount to $110,254. However, I don't think that it's the Salary Commission's position to be re-classifying any positions within the Administration. It should be an Administrative decision. Mr. Finlay: I think that it would be prudent to adopt the recommendation made by Mr. Fernandez because everything is pretty much in line with what we have discussed; the numbers are very similar to the numbers that were discussed before. The communication puts in a little bit of science and background and ties it to other departments. So, to follow the recommendation would be appropriate to add it to draft Resolution 2011-1. Mr. Dahle: I agree with Commissioner Finlay. Chair King: Okay. Mr. Crowell: I also agree. But my only concern is that it wouldn't automatically go up to $103,041 only because of what was said early that the raises in the Resolution were not budgeted for. I was more concerned with keeping it in line with what we already have and I think that Mr. Fernandez's explanation was a good one. Mr. Dahle: So do we need a motion? 6 1 P a g e Ms. Kunioka-Volz: I am kind of in agreement with Chair King about the reclassification. Mr. Dahle: How did that position become effective? Mr. Isobe: By Charter. Mr. Finlay: I don't think that we are re-classifying; we are only setting the salary rate. Ms. Kunioka-Volz: Is the position currently at an EM-5 level? Mr. Isobe: Correct. The only way to get on to the salary Resolution is for the Council to adopt an ordinance listing those positions that they believe need to be part of the salary schedule that is adopted and approved by the Salary Commission. At the time the Boards and Commissions Administrator position was created in the Charter, the Council did not amend the Resolution to include that position in the Salary Resolution. The last time that the Commission sent the Resolution to the County Council, the Council took action by adopting an ordinance to include the Boards and Commissions Administrator in the list of positions, and as a result, the Salary Commission must include it. Prior to it not being included on the Resolution, as Malcolm has pointed out, the Administrator's position was classified by Personnel as an EM-5. But now that it has been included in the Resolution, the Civil Service portion is no longer relevant and it is now considered a Cabinet level position that is appointed and the appointing authority is the Mayor. Chair Kind: I think that Mr. Fernandez's explanation does give backing regarding the salary amount. As for the disparities, can or cannot this be addressed by this body at this meeting? Because I was looking at the disparity as an issue mainly because the Mayor is receiving a lower salary than the subordinates. The larger piece is with the County Attorney who, as Commissioner Finlay pointed out, the Prosecuting Attorney has different jobs and skill levels. In thinking about it, we really did not receive any testimony for or against it. The previous Commissions who sat in on this consideration decided to go this way. Although it's taking longer than they thought it was going to take, it will eventually correct itself on 07/01/13. Mr. Finlay: The real urgency is to get the draft Resolution 2011-1 adopted because it would uncomplicate the salaries that are in limbo. Chair King: I'd like to see the historical salaries stay on the Resolution so that we have something to go by. I agree with the Commission to place the amount of$103,041 under the 12/01/08 date and place the $110,254 under the 07/01/13 date. With these numbers in place nothing else changes. I would accept a motion to adopt draft Resolution 2011-1 as amended. Mr. Isobe: Chair King,before you make the motion to adopt the Resolution, I would like to recommend some technical changes and take into consideration Councilwoman Yukimura's written testimony because it does have some merit. The technical changes will not change the intent, but to consider her point that there is no mention in the draft 2011-1 Resolution to indicate that it amends the previous Resolution. I would also like to consider Chair King's comment to retain the history of the salaries. With that said, what our office will do before we finalize the 7 1 P a g e Resolution is make reference that is does amend the previous Resolution. Another thing that I would like to recommend is that where it shows the deletion of Section 2 on the Resolution, which is the provision of the Mayor and Council and the budget, that we insert into the Resolution a statement to clarify the intent of the Salary Commission that the salaries of the Prosecuting Attorney and Deputies as well as the County Clerk and the County Auditor be frozen until such time that the new salaries beyond July 2013 is adopted. This would correct the disparity. I think that clarification and historical perspective would be helpful for future Salary Commissions so that they may understand exactly what took place. So if you are in agreement with my recommendations, I will draft the Resolution prior to your signing. Chair King: I agree and thank you. Mr. Finlay moved to adopt the draft Resolution 2011-1 as amended. Ms. Kunioka-Volz seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. Chair King: May I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? Mr. Dahle: Just for clarification, are we all going to sign the Resolution when we can? Mr. Isobe: We will draft the final Resolution and email it to the Commissioners for review; however, at some point the Commissioners will need to stop by the Office of Boards and Commissions to sign the document and transmit it to the County Council. Mr. Finlay: I am leaving for vacation today for a month. Mr. Dahle: Is the intent to get the Resolution 2011-1 to Council as soon as possible? Mr. Isobe: Yes,because the Council would still have the opportunity to amend the Resolution if they choose to. Chair King: If they amend the Resolution, does the Commission have to schedule another meeting? Mr. Isobe: It would come back,but only to inform the Commission of its amendments if there are any. Other than that, no further action will be required of the Commission. Ms. Clark: They actually would not be amending it but may reject the whole Resolution or part of it. Mr. Dahle: So if they reject the Resolution, does the Commission have to come back with a modified version? Ms. Clark: What was in effect before (Inaudible) 8 1 P a g e Mr. Dahle: Does this Commission have further business to conduct for the remainder of the year? Chair Kiniz: We should get together in the future on a going forward basis. Mr. Dahle: Is it required that we prepare something for the upcoming March 15th date, even though we don't have any recommendations or increases; do we have to send Council something? Ms. Clark: No, if you put it in the Resolution it would carry over until the expired date. Mr. Dahle: Okay. Mr. Finlay: I don't have much history with the Salary Commission,but I do understand that in year past that the Salary Commission was endeavoring to bring up the salaries to at least be commensurate with the government employee unions who negotiate the salaries. And it seems that the benchmark for what the management team should be compensated at was set by the Union negotiator benchmarks. A couple of years ago, I know that it was hard to attract the proper talent to come to the County, so I appreciate the efforts that were taken. In this current day and age, we need to look at things differently and also look at what the private side job market is and what salaries were out there and blend that benchmark with the benchmarks with the union negotiated salaries. I am concerned that there is a shifting ground and that with the private side, the salaries were starting to drop and we may have a situation where the County positions are compensated at a far greater rate than the private side. And the other is I am not sure if it is a positive thing to have the management team's salaries benchmarked off of the union negotiated salaries. It would tend to make the management team's negotiations with the unions to the point where they would encourage the unions to get as much as they possibly can because the Salary Commission is just going to come along later and raise their salaries. I am just saying that there is a completely fundamental shift in the economy and that we have to address that in the future. Chair King: The Nash Study that we have is outdated. Mr. Finlay: Another thing that we need to look at is the value of the benefits package that goes along with the salaries. Chair King: Good point. Thank you. Mr. Isobe: What I would like to suggest is that since Commissioner Finlay will be back on island at the beginning of September, maybe the Commission can meet either in September or early October. Our office can coordinate your schedules to see when everyone is available. Chair King: Thank you. Can I entertain a motion to adjourn? 9 1 P a g e Mr. Dahle moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 a.m. Ms. Kunioka-Volz seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Submitted by: Mercedes Youn, Staff Support Clerk Reviewed and Approved by: Charles King, Chair Approved as circulated on: