Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-19 Salary Commission Minutes COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I SALARY COMMISSION December 19, 2011 M I N U T E S Chair Perkins called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Conference Room of the Department of Human Resources, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 2, Hilo, Hawai‘i. Present: Mr. Gerald Perkins, Chair Ms. Karolyn P. Lundkvist, Member Mr. George J. Handgis, Member (via video-conferencing at WHCC) Ms. Marcella L. Stroh, Member Mr. Brian De Lima, Member Others present: Ms. Molly Lugo, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mr. Ronald K. Takahashi, Director of Human Resources Ms. Sharon Toriano, Deputy Director of Human Resources (via video- conferencing at WHCC) Ms. Joney Nitahara, Human Resources Manager Ms. Velma Y. Menezes, Secretary-Reporter Chair Perkins called the meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2010 MOTION: Chair Perkins moved that the minutes of February 17, 2010 be approved as circulated. The motion was seconded by Ms. Stroh and unanimously carried. NEW BUSINESS A) Elect Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary for Calendar Year 2012. MOTION: Mr. De Lima nominated Mr. Handgis as Chair. The motion was seconded by Ms. Stroh and unanimously carried. MOTION: Ms. Stroh nominated Ms. Lundkvist as Vice Chair. The motion was seconded by Mr. De Lima and unanimously carried. Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer MOTION: Mr. De Lima nominated Ms. Stroh as Secretary. The motion was seconded by Mr. Handgis and unanimously carried. Mr. Handgis was elected to serve as Chair, with Ms. Lundkvist as Vice Chair and Ms. Stroh as Secretary for calendar year 2012. B) Communication No. 11-01, dated January 18, 2011, from Jay T. Kimura, Prosecuting Attorney, requesting that First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Charlene Y. Iboshi retain her salary at A-19, step D, when she assumes the position of Prosecuting Attorney on April 1, 2011. C) Communication No. 11-02, dated March 7, 2011, from Ronald T. Takahashi, Director of Human Resources, to Gerald Perkins, Chair, Salary Commission, taking interim action on Ms. Charlene Iboshi’s compensation adjustment based on his interpretation of existing authorities, subject to ratification and/or amendment by the Salary Commission when new members are appointed. The two items were discussed simultaneously as they pertained to the same matter. Ms. Lugo noted that the communications are for the Commission’s discussion and any appropriate action that needs to be taken. Item C calls for the Commission to either ratify the decision that Mr. Takahashi made or propose some other course of action. Mr. Takahashi provided insight into the matter and explained that Mr. Kimura had announced his retirement before April 1, 2011. Prior to doing so, he submitted this letter requesting that Ms. Iboshi’s salary be at A- 19, step D, as he didn’t feel it appropriate that Ms. Iboshi return to the A step. The Charter calls for his First Deputy, Ms. Iboshi, to take over as the Prosecuting Attorney, as a matter of law. When Mr. Kimura’s letter was submitted, there were just two members on the Salary Commission, and a quorum was highly unlikely, so Mr. Takahashi decided to take interim action based on a review of the Salary Commission’s pay plan where it says a new appointment or re-elected official would start at the A step. Mr. Takahashi didn’t think that any of those provisions applied in this case because Ms. Iboshi wasn’t re-elected or newly appointed. It was really just a matter of assuming the position as part of the Charter provisions. Therefore, Mr. Takahashi concluded that the Salary Commission’s pay plan which governed the pay for the directors didn’t really apply. As the Director of Human Resources, he is authorized to provide compensation adjustments in situations where there are no clear-cut rules or guidelines that apply, as long as it doesn’t take away from the general intent of any provisions that would be applicable. 2 Ms. Iboshi was currently on the D step at A-18, and she had moved from A to D through progression of years of service. Mr. Takahashi didn’t think it fair that they take away her longevity (steps). Therefore, he took an interim action, which is subject to ratification or adjustment by this Commission today, to basically agree with then-Prosecutor Kimura’s recommendation to have Ms. Iboshi appointed at the A-19, D step. Ms. Iboshi’s pay went from $108,180 (A-18D) to $113,580 (A-19D). Her first deputy took a pay cut from $99,240 to $99,000 (A-18A). Mr. De Lima noted that Mr. Takahashi referred to the Charter in his presentation, but the Charter references were only in relationship to the first deputy becoming the Prosecutor. The concept of steps is Commission driven. The current practice according to the pay plan is that when a new Prosecutor is elected, by the rules that exist, the Prosecutor comes in at A-19, step A. Mr. De Lima asked if that means all the appointed deputies under the Prosecutor would go back to step A. Mr. Takahashi responded that the deputy prosecutors are governed by the Salary Ordinance of the County, which provides that the Prosecuting Attorney may appoint the deputies at a salary not to exceed 90% of the Prosecutor’s salary. If a deputy’s present salary exceeds 90% of step A, the deputy would have to take a reduction. This is by the ordinance adopted by the Council. The same rule applies to deputies in the Corporation Counsel’s office. The salaries in the Fire Department, however, are governed by collective bargaining. Mr. De Lima stated that, noting the above, it’s clear to him that they have to follow the spirit and intent of what exists, and although he knows Ms. Iboshi deserves every penny she earns, it would be imprudent for them to just automatically go to step D. He thinks the Commission should take it to step C. She shouldn’t get a decrease in pay. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to confirm Mr. Takahashi’s actions up to today’s date and that hereon in, Ms. Iboshi be paid at A-19, step C. The motion was seconded by Mr. Handgis. Discussion: Ms. Stroh confirmed that the pay at step C would be at $110,268. Ms. Lundkvist stated that she doesn’t see any problem with Ms. Iboshi remaining at step D. Mr. De Lima stated that the only reason he’s suggesting that they don’t automatically go to step D is that in the present system, when a person takes a position, the person goes back to step A. He don’t think it’s fair to Ms. Iboshi to go back to step A and get paid less than what she’s getting right now; and since she’s not elected, what he’s suggesting is that she shouldn’t suffer a pay cut, and the step that would result in no pay cut would be a 3 step C. That’s the logic that he’s using. She should retain any moneys that she’s gotten up to now under the Commission’s confirmation of what Mr. Takahashi did. Ms. Iboshi noted, for the Commission’s understanding, that when the first deputy takes on the job of the Prosecutor, there are more responsibilities and pressures. In fact, she does plan to come back later to request changes so that when the new Prosecutor comes into office, the deputies who have longevity will not be negatively impacted. Mr. De Lima agreed that the present system is not optimal for retaining deputies, and he would like to re-examine it. However, since this is the law, they need to comply with the spirit of what was intended. If they follow the strict intent of the law, Ms. Iboshi should be taken back to step A. However, he does agree with Mr. Takahashi. He doesn’t think Ms. Iboshi should get a decrease in pay, and he doesn’t think the people under her should get a decrease in pay. He agrees they should adjust this, but they’re not going to adjust it today, as they have to comply with the sunshine law. In the interim, his motion is the fairest way for everybody. Mr. Handgis noted that he seconded the motion because clearly it appears that not only is it fair, but he senses it is probably the appropriate thing statutorily. Mr. De Lima stated that he’s not their counsel, but he doesn’t think they’d be violating any law if they did what he’s suggesting, and they’d probably meet more of the spirit of the existing intent than to just automatically give the step increase from a D to D. Mr. Handgis stated that he concurs completely and asked whether counsel has any comments. Ms. Lugo stated that in regards to Mr. Handgis’ comment that it would be most consistent with what’s required under the law or the rules, the problem is that there’s a gap in the rules to address this situation, so that’s what the Commission is dealing with – interpreting the intent. Ms. Lundkvist noted that 18D to 19D is not such a major jump. Mr.De Lima responded that the D wouldn’t be consistent with the intent of the existing statute. The existing pay plan is when a new person is in the position, the person doesn’t carry their step. The person goes back to a step A. This is a gap, and Ms. Iboshi is serving in an interim basis. Ms. Lugo noted that the gap results because the existing pay plan addresses when a person is newly elected or appointed, but Ms. Iboshi took over by law. If the existing Prosecuting Attorney retires or otherwise leaves the position, then the first deputy assumes the position. It’s not the same as being newly elected or newly appointed. Ms. Iboshi, by law, takes over the position; and that’s where Mr. Takahashi’s interpretation of the intent was – 4 that she should stay in step because by operation of law she stepped into his shoes. Ms. Stroh stated that in looking at Mr. Takahashi’s recommendation and looking at the comparison of the other attorneys, it brings Ms. Iboshi in line with what she’s supposed to be. In addition, she’s more experienced, and she has a heavy caseload. She agrees with Mr. Takahashi’s recommendation. She’s looking at the comparison of the executive pay and feels they need to bring the executives in line with everybody else, looking at the operating budget and how many employees they’re supervising. The Commission needs to bring them up to par into the 21 century. These st executives are underpaid. Mr. De Lima noted that they need all five votes for the motion to pass. He asked what happens if the Commission doesn’t pass it. Ms. Lugo stated that if the motion dies because it didn’t get the five votes, then they’re at status quo, which is what Mr. Takahashi’s determination is, until a successful motion passes. That may require getting more bodies on the Commission. Ms. Stroh commented that $110,000 would still bring Ms. Iboshi almost $5,000 below the norm. Mr. De Lima responded that there is no norm, which is what he’s contending. Ms. Iboshi was at A-18D. Her position was first deputy. A-19 is the elected person. By the present ordinance, the new person that steps into that position starts at $103,944. Now she is stepping into the A-19 position. Mr. Takahashi is saying that she was at A-18 at the D level, and because she wasn’t elected, she’s only getting into that position because the person retired, she should retain the D level. The law doesn’t say that. Mr. Takahashi is just interpreting it that way. The law says if a person is newly appointed or elected, the person goes back to A-19A. Technically, Mr. De Lima believes Ms. Iboshi was newly appointed. She took an oath for the new position. He believes Mr. Takahashi is wrong on that, but he’s okay with trying to find a loophole and thinks the best loophole is to allow Ms. Iboshi to take the position at A-19 and reduce it to step C. He thinks that’s a compromise, and he’s not going to interpret the law to benefit the individual, but rather with what’s most consistent with the law, although he does disagree with the law and thinks they should correct it in the future. Mr. Takahashi didn’t have a Commission at the time the situation arose and didn’t have five votes, so he made the best decision he could; and Ms. Iboshi benefited from it. Mr. De Lima has no problem with that, but now they do have commissioners. Their predecessors felt that anytime a person goes into a new position, they have to start at step A. Mr. De Lima doesn’t like that, but he’s going to follow their intent because that’s the oath he took today. Subsequently, he thinks they should fix this situation in the future, then no one can accuse them of not following the existing intent. 5 Again, he believes the existing law has problems, and they will have a problem when a newly elected Prosecuting Attorney takes office after November’s election. Mr. Ashida has been in office for approximately 12 years; Mr. Kimura was in the Prosecuting Attorney’s position for almost 16 years, so there have been a lot of deputies who have received increases all this time. Most of them are going to get a reduction in pay unless the Commission does something between now and November. Chair Perkins stated that it sounds like the Commission will need to take action in two steps: 1) address the C level today; 2) address when Ms. Iboshi will be able to move to the D level. Mr. De Lima stated that under the existing rules, he believes it’s two years of service. Mr. Takahashi noted that at one of the last Commission meetings, the Commission had put on a freeze on the step movements until further notice, so the pay plan, as it provides for step movements, is frozen. The Commission voted on the motion with all voting in favor except Ms. Lundkvist, who opposed the motion. The motion failed. Ms. Lugo opined that the failed motion leaves the Commission at status quo. Ms. Lundkvist stated that she understands what Mr. De Lima is saying from a legal standpoint; however, she believes there are other things to take into consideration, such as the amount of work Ms. Iboshi is doing and increased workload that she would have to continue to do. People should get paid for what they do. Mr. De Lima stated that the Commission can revisit this issue when the Mayor appoints more members to the Commission. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved that the Commission ask Corporation Counsel for a formal opinion on whether Mr. Takahashi’s determination in the absence of a confirmation by the Commission is proper. The motion was seconded by Chair Perkins. Discussion: Ms. Lundkvist asked about the possibility of more Commissioners coming on board. Mr. De Lima thought there would be more within the next few months. Ms. Lugo noted that a nomination is on the Finance Committee’s agenda for confirmation, and the Commission would have one new member in approximately three weeks. 6 The motion was voted on and carried unanimously. D)Consider adjustments to new Fire Chief’s starting salary. Mr. Takahashi noted that the new Fire Chief was appointed at A-18, step A. Chief Rosario was a civil service employee prior to being appointed Fire Chief. His salary was governed through the collective bargaining. Mr. De Lima thought this is a good example of why the existing pay plan is a bad plan. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved that the Commission ask Mr. Takahashi to review the existing plan and return to the Commission within 60 days or at the next meeting with recommendations to restructure the plan. Mr. Takahashi stated that he understands what Mr. De Lima is saying; however, he’s asking Mr. De Lima to be more specific as to what he believes the problem to be. Mr. De Lima used the scenario of the Fire Commission appointing Mr. Rosario. If the Salary Commission follows the existing law, he goes back to step A. Mr. Takahashi noted that while the word “back” is used, there was an increase in Mr. Rosario’s pay from an Assistant Chief to Fire Chief. Mr. De Lima stated that Mr. Rosario starts at step A. That results in a reduction of his present salary. Mr. Takahashi noted that Mr. Rosario’s base pay is in the low $90,000’s; and Ms. Nitahara noted that Exhibit 6b shows all the EMs in the Fire Department with their base pay (not talking overtime, just base pay). Mr. De Lima stated that they’re getting this letter saying there’s a problem. That means they want the Commission to do something different than what the existing pay plan provides. Ms. Nitahara noted that the pay plan provides for an appointing authority to come before the Commission to request a higher step, which is the procedure the Fire Commission is following. Mr. De Lima stated that the point he’s trying to make is that they are making exceptions as they go. It’s not consistent; it’s discretionary. Some people come in, some people don’t. This plan has proven to be a problem, and when the 90% situation kicks in, that’ll be a problem too. He doesn’t think they should address this specific problem right now, but instead address it in its overall context. 7 Mr. Handgis stated that he looks forward to coming to Hilo and being at the Commission meetings in person. He has done work with the State before, and while he hasn’t met Mr. De Lima before, he does think what Mr. De Lima is saying is completely logical. Oftentimes, people get hung up on the minutiae when they should be taking a view of the big picture. He also finds it disturbing that they need nine members but have only five. If they’re going to take this seriously, they need to step back, take a 10,000 foot overview, and try and fix more than one little piece at a time. He also doesn’t like the idea of being forced to make a decision to get him referred to as a precedent at future meetings. Ms. Stroh stated that she agrees with that wholeheartedly because everything that they’re going to do from now on will be exceptions to the law. Mr. De Lima reminded everyone of the motion on the table. Ms. Lundkvist seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Lugo stated that in regards to the Fire Commission’s request for the adjustment, she understands the concerns that Mr. De Lima and the Commission are raising, but she would like the Commission to look at Exhibit 3b, paragraph 5. Within the pay plan is a provision for the appointing authority, which in this case is the Fire Commission, to seek an adjustment. The current Fire Chief started at step A; now they’re seeking an adjustment. The reasoning is set forth briefly in the letter and not pursuant to paragraph 5. So there is a certain process in the pay plan, and Ms. Lugo just want to make sure the Commission understood this request is based on this process that’s allowed in the current pay plan to seek step movement upon request. Mr. De Lima stated that he would like Mr. Takahashi to provide the Commission with an example of adjustments made since the inception of this plan to give them an idea of how many exceptions were approved by the Salary Commission so that they can view things in some historical context. He really would like to revisit the whole concept of steps and salaries. He’s open minded to reviewing why it was done and what was done; and perhaps Mr. Takahashi could provide them with reading material on that so they can view things in an overall context. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to table the Fire Chief’s compensation until the next meeting or within 60 days. The motion was seconded by Ms. Stroh and unanimously carried. NEXT MEETING DATE The Commission scheduled its next meeting for March 5, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. 8 Mr. Handgis asked Chair Perkins to share the history of why there have been so many vacancies on what he believes to be an important commission; why they need nine members and have only five. Chair Perkins stated his experience is that there aren’t many people who want to volunteer their time. Ms. Lugo added that there is an ongoing effort to get more commissioners, and because of the time commitment, it’s hard to find people willing to serve. However, they are definitely trying to get the Commission filled. The responsibility for filling the vacancies rests with the Mayor’s Office, but recommendations are welcome. Mr. Handgis asked whether it’s incumbent on the Chair to talk to the Mayor and perhaps the County Council on getting recommendations. MOTION: Chair Perkins moved that the Chair be proactive in getting volunteers for the Salary Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Lundkvist and unanimously carried. Ms. Lugo noted that the Salary Commission is a nine-member commission that requires one representative from each Council district. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Chair Perkins moved that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded by Ms. Lundkvist and unanimously carried. The meeting adjourned at 2:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gerald Perkins, Chair vym 9