Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComm. No. 25-05.08 From Del H. Otsuka in Opposition of the Proposed Salary Increases and Commenting on the Proposed Findings of Fact RCVD HUMAN O5 a ES 9025 DEC 22 cmB.4 e Glynis Yamada, Secretary Hawai'i County Salary Commission 101 Pauahi Street Suite 2 Hilo, HI 96720 December 21, 2025 Dear Glynis, Please find attached two written testimonies for the upcoming Salary Commission meeting: 1. Primary Written Testimony 2. Supplemental Written Testimony - Findings of Fact Clarification The supplemental testimony is submitted to assist the record and clarify specific Findings of Fact referenced in the Commission's packet. Thank you so much for your assistance. Sincerely, Dell H. Otsuka Keaukaha, Hawai'i SALARY COMMISSION. COUNTY OF HAWAI'I Comm. No. 25-05.08 Date jJ cember 22, 2025 RC VD ` .'4."eM,f Fc P any`_,S d'j'u2 DEC-s i'��-HR:4 • Dell Otsuka Hilo, Hawai'i 96720-4833 December 20, 2025 Steven Pavao, Chair Hawai'i County Salary Commission 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 2 Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Testimony to the Hawai'i County Salary Commission Subject: Proposed Salary Increases for Elected and Appointed Officials-OPPOSED Agenda item 6 Unfinished Business (for discussion and appropriate action) Communication No. 25-05.01: Proposed Findings Of Fact By The 2025 County of Hawaii Salary Commission, Dated August 28, 2025 Good Morning Chair, Commissioners, Counsel and Secretary, Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony for the record. Again and still, I offer these comments in the spirit of transparency, prudence, and continued public confidence in the Commission's work, particularly as this Commission considers proposed salary adjustments for its highest-level elected and appointed officials. Charter Process and Voting Thresholds I respectfully wish to note Section 13-28(f) of the Hawai'i County Charter, which provides that any salary adjustment exceeding ten percent requires an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the entire membership of the Salary Commission. As the Charter does not distinguish between single-year and cumulative multi-year adjustments, I encourage clarity on how this provision is being interpreted and documented in the Commission's findings, particularly where adjustments may accrue over multiple years. Clear documentation of this interpretation is essential to transparency and public trust, especially given the magnitude and timing.of the proposed increases. In that regard, I respectfully request clarity as to whether any approved salary adjustments are intended to apply prospectively only, or whether retroactive application has been considered. Section 13-4(h) of the Hawai'i County Charter, "the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership to which a board or commission is entitled shall be necessary to make any action valid..." Workforce Pipeline and Recruitment Realities Last month's report submitted by Human Resources reflected 693 vacancies among the 23 Departments listed. Of those 23 departments listed, two operate 24/7/365; Police and Fire. Together they have 267 vacancies. Parks & Recreation, Public Works and Environmental Management departments together have 191, (although not staffed 24/7, they do have on-call staff). Just these five departments account for 472 of the 693 vacancies; 66% of essential public safety and emergency services. Rather than focusing on raises for ALL department heads across the board, the absence of efficiency and performance metrics MUST be an important criteria. Granted, the police and fire have their own recruitment efforts, but what of the other departments? What has and is being done to address these shortages in their departments less than a year in? I would also like to respectfully address the frequently cited assertion that "no one is applying" for County positions. Through conversations with local workforce development organizations that assist residents-including Native Hawaiian individuals-in preparing for and entering the workforce, I have learned of circumstances that suggest the challenge may lie less with applicant availability and more with the structure of recruitment, placement, and retention practices in the County structure. From discussions with Alu Like, I was made aware of two individuals (although there are more) who applied for County employment for eight and ten years. One individual applied 21 times! Was hired only for a short-term (five months) or provisional basis. Another individual commutes over 200 miles a day for work in Kona if doing a round trip. If not round trip, then having to sleep in their car, resulting in extreme commuting burdens and personal hardship; and has been doing this for over two years! These experiences underscore the absence of geographic and housing considerations within current hiring frameworks. Such patterns raise many questions about whether existing hiring structures unintentionally discourage long-term retention, or maybe arbitrarily conducted. I have also spoken with representatives of ALTRES, a local staffing and workforce solutions firm, and was informed that the County previously had a contractual relationship with that organization to support recruitment efforts. To my knowledge, that relationship is no longer in place. I have raised this in discussions with the Department of Environmental Management (as a commissioner), as it appears to be an example of an established recruitment pipeline that could be revisited. Why County Employment Still Matters to Our People It is also important to acknowledge why County employment continues to be sought after by many local residents, even when wages may fall below a true living wage for Hawai'i County. For many families, a County job represents stability and security-access to medical care, basic benefits, and a measure of predictability that is increasingly rare these days. • This is particularly true for working parents and multigenerational households who may accept wages at or only slightly above the federal poverty level because the alternative is no medical coverage at all. The willingness of individuals to apply repeatedly, commute long distances, or endure provisional employment underscores not a lack of interest, but a deep commitment to public service and economic survival. As I was driving past Lincoln Park in Downtown Hilo, I saw a Park caretaker wearing gloves and using a rake to pick up trash and what looked like a piece of clothing...maybe from a homeless person. I couldn't help but think, (especially because of this huge issue on raises), that this County employee shows up every day for work knowing exactly what the day will look like, yet shows up to this "thankless job." How can we just disregard the hard work, dedication and commitment that so many of our people face,to give freely-raises for work that so many of us do not see, have not seen or may never see. So yes, it's been more reflective for me, having served as a commissioner (EMC) with the DEM to advocate for all of our county employees that are overworked (within their own departments and in various other job positions), underappreciated, and experiencing health issues in the process of keeping our county operational. There is no justification at this time or any reasonable explanation to support the raises. It's been less than a year into this new administration and what tangible results can we say have improved in any or all of the departments. Connection to Proposed Salary Increases These workforce realities are especially relevant when considered alongside the proposed salary increases for the County's highest-level positions. While local applicants experience instability and hardship in securing permanent County employment where 693 vacancies exist; is unacceptable. The County is simultaneously advancing salary adjustments for executive and appointed leadership based largely on recruitment and retention justifications. Respectfully, it is difficult to reconcile these two realities. Recruitment and retention challenges do not exist in isolation at the executive level; they are experienced most acutely by those attempting to enter, remain in, and advance within the County workforce under existing structural constraints. Before approving cumulative salary increases of this magnitude, it may be prudent to first evaluate whether recruitment pipelines, hiring practices, geographic placement, and retention mechanisms are functioning equitably and effectively across the organization as a whole. Timing, Transition, and Clarity I would also respectfully note that the County is entering a period of significant operational transition with the implementation of a new county-wide computer system requiring training and adaptation across departments now. During periods of major system change, careful pacing and clear communication are especially important. The County is undergoing a major $337 million, 5-year renovation project with the Hilo Wastewater Treatment Facility and is facing multiple AOC's from the EPA, not to mention more costly projects already in the process. Closing My comments are offered in keeping with the Charter's expectation that commissions exercise independent judgment in the public interest and in a manner that maintains public confidence. I am in support of a careful, transparent, and balanced approach to compensation decisions-one that reflects not only leadership roles, but the lived realities of the County workforce and the communities they serve. Thank you for your time, service, and consideration. • Respectfully submitted, e• Dell H. Otsuka Keaukaha, Hawai'i 6 , r R_ uni H s'e.Ffl ; T•l a.-.Si✓' �. Dell Otsuka Keaukaha, Hawai'i 96720-4833 December 20, 2025 Steven Pavao, Chair Hawai'i County Salary Commission 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 2 Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Supplemental Testimony to the Hawai'i County Salary Commission, Agenda Item 6. Communication No. 25-05.01: Proposed Findings Of Fact by The 2025 County of Hawai'i Salary Commission, Dated August 28, 2025 Subjects: - Proposed Salary Adjustments for Covered Positions - Clarification of Findings of Facts Good Morning Chair and Members of the Commission, Thank you for your service and for the opportunity to submit written testimony. I have carefully reviewed the proposed Findings of Fact and offer the following comments in the interest of clarity, transparency, and the Commission's responsibilities under the Hawai'i County Charter. The later Findings (7, 8, 9, and 13) are expressly classified not as factual determinations, but as conclusions, assumptions, statements of intent, or generalized justifications particularly those addressing recruitment and retention, salary inversion, public concern, and private-sector comparison. While these considerations may inform policy decisions, they are distinct from verifiable findings of fact grounded in specific data or evidence in the record. I respectfully ask the Commission to consider whether these sections would be more appropriately framed as rationale or discussion, so that the Findings of Fact themselves remain clearly tied to demonstrable evidence and fully transparent to the public. Proposed Salary Adjustments for Covered Positions Several Findings establish authority, procedure, and historical context. However, the findings that substantively justify the proposed salary adjustments-specifically Findings 7, 8, 9, and 13-rely largely on generalized conclusions and prospective concerns rather than position-specific, Hawai'i County-based data. The record does not include vacancy, turnover, or failed recruitment data demonstrating that current compensation for Covered Positions is the primary driver of recruitment or retention challenges. Salary inversion is raised as a potential concern based on base-salary comparisons that exclude overtime and step increases, which reflect earned compensation rather than documented, systemic inversion. Additionally, the proposed multi-year adjustments are justified primarily as a preventive measure rather than in response to an established, recurring condition. Clarifications of Findings of Fact Finding 1 - Authority of the Salary Commission Classification: Procedural/legal authority Finding 2 - Historical Practice Classification: Contextual/precedent based Finding 3 - Union negotiation timeline Classification: Factual background Finding 4 - Meeting notice and testimony Classification: Procedural compliance Finding 5 - Information considered Classification: Process description (inputs listed) Finding 6 - Bargaining status and timing Classification: Status update/timing context Finding 7 - Recruitment and retention conclusion Classification: Policy conclusion/judgment Finding 8 - Salary inversion concern Classification: Conditional/assumption-based Finding 9 - Preventing future inversion Classification: Preventive rationale Finding 10 - Annual review recommendation Classification: Forward-looking recommendation/Charter Finding 11 - Adoption, publication, and voting Classification: Procedural/statutory compliance Finding 12 - Balancing public concern Classification: Statement of intent/characterization Finding 13 - Private sector comparison Classification: Generalized justification Thank you for your patience, attention and service. Respectfully submitted, Dell Ot ka Keaukaha, Hawai'i District 3