2025-09-24 Salary Commission Minutes

Home

Salary Commission September 24, 2025 enough because we’re talking about the overtime—it’s not the salary, right, it’s part of the compensation? MS. TOKIHIRO: Yeah. And I think the—correct. But also it’s not necessarily subordinate civil servant because there’s—it’s—that likely inversion is going to occur with excluded managerial employees who are—so it’s not just the civil servant. MS. NAMAHOE: So, then the word that needs to be corrected is “salaries”— MS. FRENZ: It could also—I think it’s also—it’s that, but it’s also subordinate civil servant and/or excluded managers, right—to ensure that—‘cause I think that you’re right, that it was— it’s more likely than not going to be an EM, than it would be a civil servant employee. CHR. PAVAO: More likely EM—but the excluded are technically civil servants. They’re just excluded from collective bargaining, but they’re still civil servant. MS. TOKIHIRO: I think because this body is addressing the actual salaries, that I think salaries should remain because that’s what we’re talking about—apples and apples, right? So, when you’re setting the salary for department heads, you’re wanting to make sure—or this body is evaluating whether or not an inversion occurs with subordinate salaries. And because overtime is an employee benefit, that this body wouldn’t be addressing, right? MS. NAMAHOE: Okay, so—suggestion—can we look at point old Number 12 and see if that language there is encompassing enough where we wouldn’t need 10 at all? We could strike it? So, to keep up “with CPI inflation rates”? MR. NELSON: I think we need to mention inversion ‘cause we had a big conversation about it and we want to address it in case the arbitrations go—create ones. So I do think we need to keep that text in there. MS. NAMAHOE: Okay. I mean, 12 is pretty—it goes in the weeds—that’s a (inaudible) but it doesn’t—I mean, I don’t see inversion. I just see examples. So, “...avoid further inversion scenarios where Civil Servants are paid more than their managers”— MS. TOKIHIRO: I think it’s a little confusing as well because this—these were the items in the prior Findings of Fact, right—when the situation was different and when this body was trying to address both inflation and inversion and all of those issues. And, again, that may be a little different now. MS. NAMAHOE: For 12? Because 12 is going to 2026, ’27, ’28—this is current? CHR. PAVAO: That’s the proposed increases. Page 30