Laserfiche WebLink
step C. That’s the logic that he’s using. She should retain any moneys that <br />she’s gotten up to now under the Commission’s confirmation of what <br />Mr. Takahashi did. <br /> <br />Ms. Iboshi noted, for the Commission’s understanding, that when the <br />first deputy takes on the job of the Prosecutor, there are more <br />responsibilities and pressures. In fact, she does plan to come back later to <br />request changes so that when the new Prosecutor comes into office, the <br />deputies who have longevity will not be negatively impacted. <br /> <br />Mr. De Lima agreed that the present system is not optimal for retaining <br />deputies, and he would like to re-examine it. However, since this is the law, <br />they need to comply with the spirit of what was intended. If they follow the <br />strict intent of the law, Ms. Iboshi should be taken back to step A. However, <br />he does agree with Mr. Takahashi. He doesn’t think Ms. Iboshi should get a <br />decrease in pay, and he doesn’t think the people under her should get a <br />decrease in pay. He agrees they should adjust this, but they’re not going to <br />adjust it today, as they have to comply with the sunshine law. In the interim, <br />his motion is the fairest way for everybody. <br /> <br />Mr. Handgis noted that he seconded the motion because clearly it <br />appears that not only is it fair, but he senses it is probably the appropriate <br />thing statutorily. <br /> <br />Mr. De Lima stated that he’s not their counsel, but he doesn’t think <br />they’d be violating any law if they did what he’s suggesting, and they’d <br />probably meet more of the spirit of the existing intent than to just <br />automatically give the step increase from a D to D. <br /> <br />Mr. Handgis stated that he concurs completely and asked whether <br />counsel has any comments. <br /> <br />Ms. Lugo stated that in regards to Mr. Handgis’ comment that it would <br />be most consistent with what’s required under the law or the rules, the <br />problem is that there’s a gap in the rules to address this situation, so that’s <br />what the Commission is dealing with – interpreting the intent. <br /> <br />Ms. Lundkvist noted that 18D to 19D is not such a major jump. <br /> <br />Mr.De Lima responded that the D wouldn’t be consistent with the intent of <br />the existing statute. The existing pay plan is when a new person is in the <br />position, the person doesn’t carry their step. The person goes back to a step <br />A. This is a gap, and Ms. Iboshi is serving in an interim basis. <br /> <br />Ms. Lugo noted that the gap results because the existing pay plan <br />addresses when a person is newly elected or appointed, but Ms. Iboshi took <br />over by law. If the existing Prosecuting Attorney retires or otherwise leaves <br />the position, then the first deputy assumes the position. It’s not the same as <br />being newly elected or newly appointed. Ms. Iboshi, by law, takes over the <br />position; and that’s where Mr. Takahashi’s interpretation of the intent was – <br /> 4 <br /> <br />