My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2025-09-24 Salary Commission Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Human Resources
>
Salary Commission
>
Minutes
>
2025
>
2025-09-24 Salary Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/24/2025 2:14:40 PM
Creation date
12/24/2025 2:12:22 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Salary Commission September 24, 2025 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MS. TOKIHIRO: Yeah. <br /> <br />MS. NAMAHOE: So, we don’t—I’m confused. What is it that’s now previous—what are the <br />prvious Findings that are now out-of-date? Which point are you making? <br /> <br />MS. TOKIHIRO: I’m not saying they’re necessarily out-of-date. I’m just saying that these <br />Findings were modeled after what was previously put forth in the prior Findings and then the <br />amounts were updated. <br /> <br />So, as far as, like, addressing inversion—that clarification that it may not be happening quite <br />often any more. I mean, it’s still maybe an issue but just clarfiying some of that, but the <br />surrounding information, may be, a little different now for perspective. <br /> <br />MS. NAMAHOE: Yeah, thank you. I guess, what I’m trying to do is interpret what you’re <br />seeing or suggesting—like, where we put that in, in terms of correction. Am I looking at it <br />correctly? <br /> <br />MS. TOKIHIRO: Yes. So, my only correction as far as where we’re at right now, the former <br />Number 10, which I now believe is the new Number 8—we talked about removing “quite <br />often”—I think, I’m not sure that DCC Frenz has provided us with the, kind of, read back of <br />what that revised sentence might be because we had moved on to the next one. So— <br /> <br />MS. FRENZ: I haven’t quite yet because I think Commissioner Namahoe was suggesting the <br />consideration of—if old Number 12 was sufficient, maybe we don’t need old Number 10. So, I <br />think we, kind of, skipped to that one to look into whether or not that captures the intent of old <br />Number 10. <br /> <br />If the answer is, “No, it doesn’t”—then, we’ll go back to old Number 10 and get back to work <br />there. <br /> <br />MS. NAMAHOE: So, I guess my question—this is Namahoe—what does 10 say that 12 <br />doesn’t? What’s 10 covering that 12 is not? <br /> <br />MR. NELSON: It specifically mentions the inversion language, which is not included in the <br />other one. The other one just talks about what the adjustments are. <br /> <br />CHR. PAVAO: What our proposal is, yeah. <br /> <br />MS. NAMAHOE: Yeah, it does include— <br /> <br />MR. NELSON: It doesn’t address how we agreed, I think, as a group, that we would go back if <br />we had further information—that review other—consider other changes. <br /> <br />CHR. PAVAO: Yeah, I think 10 tries to address the inversion or the potential for inversion. <br />Page 31 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.