|
Salary Commission September 24, 2025
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />CHR. PAVAO: Yeah.
<br />
<br />MR. NELSON: And, normally, if you take away a requirement—a salary would be reduced. In
<br />this case you can’t find anybody, ‘cause the salary supposedly not enough, right? So, I don’t
<br />know that (inaudible).
<br />
<br />CHR. PAVAO: Yeah, I don’t think you can reduce the salary but then you’re going to have
<br />inversion for sure.
<br />
<br />MR NELSON: Right. So I don’t know—
<br />
<br />CHR. PAVAO: I mean, if you take away the requirement because that person is supervising
<br />engineers, like in DPW, so I mean, if you take away the requirement, theoretically, I guess you
<br />could have inversion, you could have subordinates making more because they’re licensed
<br />engineers and the administrator is not—but, yeah.
<br />
<br />This Council did pass it from what I understand but there was a differing view—some people
<br />thought they should retain and raise the salaries so that the mayor’s office can find good
<br />candidates—and recruit and retain people in those positions—but at the current salary, very
<br />difficult. It’s not competitive with the private sector.
<br />
<br />MS. FRENZ: And I think that that’s—that’s the Mayor’s Administration matter, right. We—I
<br />think it’s important to respect what the Mayor’s Administration thinks in that regard. He is the
<br />appointing authority for those positions. And I think, under our Rules for the Salary
<br />Commission, you have a duty and obligation to confer and consult with the department heads—
<br />the appointing authorities.
<br />
<br />So, you guys have done that, but there’s been very little feedback, right, received. And granted
<br />there was a very tight turn-a-round for that feedback to come in. So, does this Commission want
<br />to extend the opportunity to receive additional feedback? It may be that you don’t get any, right?
<br />We can’t speak as to whether or not people are going to feel comfortable or compelled to
<br />respond and provide their input. You have, technically, met your obligation under the Rules to
<br />collaborate with the appointing authorities but, again, it was a tight timeframe.
<br />
<br />So, the reason why I ask is for scheduling purposes, it all matters, right. Currently, your
<br />proposed Findings, which is what we’re discussing now, are or had been advertised as,
<br />theoretically, taking effect come January of 2026. In order for that to actually be possible, we
<br />need to do the publication, we need to finalize the Proposed Findings today, theoretically. Like
<br />we did last time, we go through all of the lines, and we make the adjustments. In the hearing,
<br />then a motion would be to adopt, as amended, if amendments are required or requested. And
<br />then, the Secretary and I would work on publication in the newspaper. We hold our public
<br />hearing and then we come back for an actual—for the motion to, theoretically, adopt those, if
<br />you still felt so compelled after everything in the public hearing and/or public testimony.
<br />
<br />Page 9
<br />
<br />
<br />
|