Laserfiche WebLink
Salary Commission <br />August 4, 2023 <br />without the influence of politics. Because if we were to be guided by politics, we would be in a <br />lot of trouble and a world of hurt. <br />I do agree with the conversation. Secondly, I do agree with the conversation with regards to <br />establishing a mechanism that prohibits or discourages the parity issue. I can tell you it's my <br />understanding from previous exchanges with the Salary Commission, that the Salary <br />Commission can address that just annually or at your quarterly meetingif, at any point in time <br />that these salaries become below what we would consider (inaudible) or industry standard you <br />folks can arbitrarily or through deliberations, increase the salaries of any of these individuals. <br />And so, that's the purpose of the Salary Commission, is to monitor these salaries, be able to <br />provide good, thoughtful, intelligent recommendations—and increase those salaries. And so, <br />regardless of whether you guys pick your the 18 percent is going get us to today, we need to <br />project out, so that you guys aren't having to have this argument every month or every quarter <br />when you meet, so that you can focus on the business at -hand. And, possibly, re -look at your <br />rules and decide if there's another mechanism that you can put in place, which we've often <br />argued or the deputy chief makes 5 percent more than the highest paid subordinate—and the <br />chief makes 10 percent more than the highest paid subordinate. You guys would establish the <br />base salaries but then that escalating slide scale would still go up. <br />So, it's basically provides you guys with the judicial groundwork that enables you folks to <br />complete and do your task in an a -political type of setting. With that, I yield. Thank you. <br />ACTING CHR FARAHL Point clearly made. Anybody else? So, let me summarize it again. <br />We need to come up with some sort of a objective justification for putting that column in place. <br />And that objective justification is the parity adjustment. Correct? We're calling it a parity <br />adjustment, put that number in. That number is based upon what other people have gotten. <br />Correct? What the increments, cost of living, and the base adjustment aspect. So, now that's the <br />first part. This column is based on that. <br />And then the issue becomes, in each one of those rows of that column, we need to put <br />information of why a particular position is adjusted even higher than that number, or lower than <br />that number, or left the same place. <br />And I don't think so and I still insist on that one—that it's not—we're not recommending the <br />establishment of a merit system because it's not in our authority to do that. But when we <br />complete this task, there's nothing that stops this Commission the way I read it—nothing—to <br />suggest to the County that you will continuously be behind the eighth ball unless you establish an <br />annual system of cost of living increase in an (inaudible) system of performance-based <br />adjustment to the positions that are not unions. Go ahead. <br />MR. RIORDAN: That's our job. We're the ones that (inaudible) we don't tell the county <br />council to do that. We set that salary increase, if we want to do that. And there's been <br />suggestions that we follow Business Unit 13. And I think we can get into those weeds later—but <br />if we start with something where we can have a thing and say, "This looks good"—and then <br />Page 26 <br />