2012-03-05 Salary Commission Minutes

Home

Ms. Wong asked Mr. Takahashi to comment on the effective date of December 3 for any salary increases. Mr. Takahashi reiterated that because of the current budget situation, he had not recommended any raises, but as Mr. De Lima pointed out, that's the date that the new Mayor and new appointees would take effect. If there is going to be an increase to anyone's salary, he would agree that it shouldn't be now, but that it should be in the future at a time that's more appropriate. The timing of it can be at any future date. Mr. De Lima also addressed the Council members' pay schedule, stating that this is the only place in the world where people who are elected for the same position make different salaries. They represent the same number of citizens, they have the same authority under the law, they have the same liability under the law, but yet they are paid based on whether they are in their first term, second term, or third term. Mr. De Lima will be suggesting an amendment to that as well, also effective December 3, 2012. His reason for increasing the Corporation Counsel's pay is that the Corporation Counsel is the top civil lawyer in the County. The Prosecutor is the top prosecutor in the County. Those two positions should have the same pay. Ms. Lundkvist suggested correcting the problem now rather than later. Mr. De Lima stated that people are already serving in those positions, and the Salary Commission doesn't want their actions to be viewed as they're giving raises to these people as their foot is out the door. The raise would be for the future, for the positions down the road. The only reason Mr. Takahashi proposed an immediate effective date was because he was maintaining all the existing salaries. If the Commission is going to make adjustments, they should make adjustments for the Mayor's new appointees, and when a new Council is elected, so that the people know the salary going in. Chair Handgis inquired into the percentage of time the Corporation Counsel actually spends managing and administrating people as opposed to actually practicing the law. Ms. Lugo advised the Commission to either send the Corporation Counsel specific questions that they might find useful in making a decision or invite the Corporation Counsel to a meeting. Chair Handgis clarified that while he understands the logic of recommending the $113,580 amount, he doesn't know if it's "apples to apples." His eyes go toward the number of employees, which is four times the number of employees managed for the Prosecuting Attorney, so he is inquiring into the administrative and human resource functions in those two jobs to determine whether they are similar or identical. 3