Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-05 Salary Commission MinutesCOUNTY OF HAWAII SALARY COMMISSION March 5, 2012 MINUTES Chair Handgis called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. in the Puna Conference Room of the County Building, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii. Present: Mr. George Handgis, Chair Ms. Karolyn P. Lundkvist, Vice Chairperson Ms. Marcella L. Stroh, Secretary Mr. Brian De Lima, Member Ms. Gloria Wong, 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 Ms. Joney Nitahara, Human Resources Manager Ms. Jennifer Sakamoto, Human Resources Program Specialist Ms. Velma Y. Menezes, Secretary- Reporter STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Deputy Corporation Counsels Amy Self, Craig Masuda, Bill Brilhante, and Joseph Kamelamela testified in support of the proposed pay plan. Additionally, Mr. Brilhante and Mr. Kamelamela identified a concern on the salary set for the Corporation Counsel, which is significantly lower than salaries paid in other jurisdictions and also one of the lower salaries compared to other departments in the County. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2011 MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved that the minutes of December 19, 2011 be approved as circulated. The motion was seconded by Ms. Stroh and unanimously carried. NEW BUSINESS A) Review of existing pay plan to include restructuring salaries of executives, elected officials, and attorneys. Hawaii County is an EqualOpportunity Provider and Employer Ms. Lugo noted that at the last meeting, the Commission requested that Mr. Takahashi develop a new pay plan proposal, which the Commission has before it today. In speaking to the proposal, Mr. Takahashi explained the current pay plan, which had been developed in April 2004 whereby a tiered system had been established placing department heads in different tiers. The pay schedule included step movements whereby an executive would move to the next step in the pay scale every two years. The pay plan, however, called for a new appointment to start at the A step of a pay grade, including existing department heads who may have been appointed from a previous administration and were appointed by the new administration. They would have to revert back to step A. At the Salary Commission's request, Mr. Takahashi reviewed the existing pay plan and developed a proposal for a new plan. In the proposed pay plan, the tiers have been eliminated, as well as the salary schedule, with a new salary schedule that has one set salary for department heads, deputies, and elected officials. The Salary Commission would retain the option to review the salaries at any time and make adjustments as necessary. The pay that Mr. Takahashi is recommending is the existing pay for all the positions, as he did not want to recommend any increases due to the economic conditions and the County's budget shortfall. Mr. Takahashi noted that the current step movements for the directors have been frozen. At the request of the Mayor, the previous Salary Commission had taken action to freeze all step movements until further notice. The pay that the department heads are receiving right now is pretty much set, and this is the pay that Mr. Takahashi recommends be continued under the new pay plan, although the Commission does have pending actions for the Prosecuting Attorney, Fire Chief, and Deputy Fire Chief. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to implement the pay plan for executives and elected officials, as proposed by Mr. Takahashi, with some amendments. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wong. Discussion: Mr. De Lima proposed an amendment to line 2, which says "effective immediately." Because they will be voting on the new pay schedule, they may also be suggesting some changes as well, so he would like to propose that any increases in salaries be effective December 3, 2012, except where otherwise noted by the Salary Commission. Mr. De Lima proposed another amendment to increase the Corporation Counsel's salary to $113,580 effective December 3, 2012, bringing the Corporation Counsel's salary to the same level as the Prosecuting Attorney. December 3 is when the new Mayor and his appointees take effect. 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 Ms. Lugo advised that if the Commission wants input on the workload and administrative duties, it would be most appropriate to request the information from Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida and have him respond officially. Ms. Iboshi asked whether the Commission would like her to say a few words on how the structure is set up, to which Chair Handgis responded in the affirmative. Ms. Iboshi stated the following: It is true, she is the chief criminal lawyer for the whole island, which has approximately 185,000 people; and Lincoln Ashida is the chief civil attorney for the island. Each county is a little different, but basically, the Prosecutor's Office is much bigger. Except for Maui, prosecutors are all elected. The Corporation Counsel and the Prosecutor are both appointed in Maui. With every other county, the elected Prosecutor gets more pay. The Corporation Counsel's office is smaller and is run differently. Their work is very complex, and experienced deputies are needed in those positions. Mr. De Lima is correct in that the quality of their work and responsibilities should be recognized. In the Prosecutor's Office, they have nearly a hundred employees with 31 attorneys including herself and the first deputy, Dale Ross; and they have three offices on three places on the island. So administratively, how do you handle that big load? They handle over 22,000 criminal cases in a particular year, and their functions are very different from the Corporation Counsel's Office. Both are important. The question is what is valued more or less? Part of the issue, as Mr. De Lima had raised, is elected versus unelected. In Maui County, where the Prosecutor is appointed, there is a recognition of the difference in pay. Both the Prosecutor and Corporation Counsel on Maui are paid the same, no matter the size of the office. They're both appointed positions. To be the Prosecutor or the Corporation Counsel is a big responsibility. Not only do they need to have their lawyer's license, but they must have multiple skills and the experience to administrate an office. Regarding the differences between the two offices, the Prosecutor's Office has three offices and is bigger. They have different kinds of issues and are under a lot of pressure. The Corporation Counsel's Office deals with complex issues and requires different kinds of skill sets. Chair Handgis stated that he's trying to understand how much effort it takes to operate a hundred associates versus 27. M Ms. Iboshi noted that her office has 31 attorneys and almost a hundred staff with at least 10 volunteers at any point in time. Ms. Lugo stated that the Corporation Counsel's Office currently has at least 13 attorneys and approximately 15 staff members. Ms. Iboshi commented that the Corporation Counsel's Office has the responsibility of counseling all the departments and avoiding risk and liability. Ms. Iboshi also explained that the First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney's pay is $99,000. She believes the First Deputy and the Corporation Counsel should be paid the same. In terms of responsibility and the way the Charter is set up for the First Deputy in the Prosecutor's Office, if the Prosecutor gets run over by a truck, or as in Mr. Kimura's case where he retired, the First Deputy has to step into the position and be able to administer and lead legally and so forth. That's the way the pay structure had been set up when it was first developed. Mr. Takahashi commented on Mr. De Lima's motion regarding the Council. He recognizes there are three different levels in the salary structure, and he agrees with Mr. De Lima that it should be just one, but he left it at the same rate because if he had recommended any number, it would result in either 1) a raise to certain Council people, or 2) a decline in pay for some people. Mr. De Lima noted that his motion would be for the future. That being the case, Mr. Takahashi recommended the $48,924 salary. Mr. De Lima suggested voting on the increase for Corporation Counsel effective December 3, 2012 first and see how that goes before addressing other things. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to amend the proposal to reflect an increase to the Corporation Counsel's salary to $113,580 effective December 3, 2012. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to amend the County Council members' salaries to $48,924 effective December 3, 2012. The motion was seconded by Chair Handgis. Discussion: Mr. De Lima noted that there are three different salaries in effect right now, so his motion is that the salary be at $48,924 effective December 3, 2012. There actually is a law that says any salary increase has to be prospective for the new Council, which is the reason for the December 3, 2012 effective date. It would be one salary for all Council members. 19 Ms. Wong expressed a curiosity as to why members from Corporation Counsel were there to testify and other departments were not there speaking in favor or against the proposal. She asked whether the other departments were aware of the recommendations. Mr. Takahashi noted that the proposal was not a public recommendation and had been distributed to members of the Commission only. It is now public, however, but he had not distributed it to anyone else prior to the meeting. He believes that the individuals who testified just saw it as part of the agenda. Ms. Lugo commented that one of the reasons for the need to re- evaluate the existing pay plan is because the salaries of the Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys and Deputy Corporation Counsels are currently pegged, by the County Code, to either the Prosecuting Attorney or the Corporation Counsel, whoever makes the higher salary. Under the code, those deputies can make not less than 50% and not more than 90% of the higher salary. Thus, an arguable inequity results if a new Corporation Counsel or Prosecuting Attorney is elected and is put back to step A. That would result in a decrease in the deputies' salaries. Ms. Lugo stated that that may be a reason deputies are testifying today, because the problem perhaps wasn't anticipated when the pay plan was put into place. In any event, it's perceived as unfair and may be something that needs to be remedied. That is one of the reasons the Commission is wanting to look at revising the pay plan - to address what is coming down the road, this being an election year. As Mr. Takahashi stated, the pay plan is maintaining the status quo, so Ms. Lugo believes other departments may have comments, and the Commission might want to continue this to the next meeting to allow for more comments. Mr. Takahashi reiterated that the plan eliminates the tier system, eliminates the multi -step schedule, and eliminates the reference to new appointees going back to step A, so that there would be one set schedule that the Commission can adjust at its pleasure. Ms. Stroh noted that in the future they'd be making adjustments to increase their salaries taking inflation and other factors into consideration. The main thing for her is that they're eliminating the tier schedule and will review at a later time. However, she asked how the December 3 date would affect retirements, such as what happened in the case of Mr. Kimura and Ms. Iboshi. Mr. Takahashi explained that if the pay plan as he proposed is adopted, the salaries would be set at that rate. Therefore, if Ms. Iboshi, for example, were to retire tomorrow, the next person would come in with the I same salary that Ms. Iboshi is making now. There would be no adjustment in the salary. Ms. Stroh asked whether there are any instances now where the deputy is making more than the director. Mr. Takahashi added that if this pay plan is not adopted, come December (elections), they are going have a new Prosecutor and a new Corporation Counsel (as appointed by the Mayor), whoever that Mayor is. Under the current plan, everyone's salaries are going back to the A step, which is $99,000, which will then, as Ms. Lugo pointed out, affect the pay for all Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys and all Deputy Corporation Counsels, as right now the salaries are pegged at Mr. Kimura's old salary at $110,268 and most of them are set at 90% of that salary. Therefore, if the Commission makes no changes, or if the Commission doesn't make any changes to the current pay plan, come the next election, there will be a lot of people with a reduction in pay. That is the net effect of what is going to happen, which is why he proposed one set salary to avoid that from occurring. Mr. De Lima commented on other changes he would like to see; for example, he disagrees with where the Parks and Recreation Director is placed. Parks and Recreation is one of the largest departments, and yet it's paid in the second tier of wages. That, to Mr. De Lima, is the greatest discrepancy because most of the island's citizens use the parks; they have the most parks, the largest number of employees supervised. Then there's the Chief Engineer. It's difficult to get an engineer. Every year when a new Mayor comes on board, it's the most difficult position to fill. Why? Because it's capped at $99,000. That's something Mr. De Lima would like to visit in the future. As Ms. Wong talked about her concern on whether people knew about this proposal, Mr. De Lima's thought was that they should have the discussion, make as many changes as they think is appropriate, and then postpone final action until the final meeting. They should discuss in an open session right now their various thoughts on respective positions, make amendments that they believe make sense, then send out what they view as a consensus for further comment, and take action at a subsequent meeting. That would be better than distributing something they have real concerns about, because it doesn't give the public a real reflection of what the consensus is. So what Mr. De Lima thinks they should do today is go through various changes. He also thinks the Mayor getting a salary less than his department heads is ridiculous, and they should increase the Mayor's salary to $115,000, also effective December 3, 2012. He believes the Fire Chief and the Police Chief should have the same salary, and the Deputy Fire Chief should be commensurate with the other amounts. The Parks & Recreation head should make $99,000, and the Chief 7 Engineer should make more than $100,000. He also thinks the County Clerk should get $99,000. Chair Handgis agreed that they should have additional discussion, do some work, then come back to it. Philosophically, he feels very, very strongly that regardless what the numbers are, he believes in fairness, the moral compass, and the legality. He would like to check out the legal justification that Mr. Matsuda testified to. However, he's not inclined to necessarily increase salaries to equate fairness, especially in these economic times. In his 45 years of business, this is the most difficult time they've ever had, so while he believes strongly in many of the things Mr. De Lima said, he feels that these are very drastic times, calling for very bold measures by anybody that controls the taxpayers' purse strings. Ms. Lugo reminded the Commission of the motion on the floor regarding Council's salary that still needs to be voted on. Then the Commission can continue with specific amendments and take those item by item until a proposal has been formulated that can be sent out for comment for the next meeting. The Commission voted on the motion. The motion failed with Vice Chair Lundkvist, Ms. Stroh, and Mr. De Lima voting for the motion; and Ms. Wong and Chair Handgis voting against the motion. Chair Handgis explained that he believes additional information is required, then at the next meeting they'll be better versed. He, for one, agrees with the December 3, 2012 date. Ms. Wong stated that she theoretically agrees with every single thing that Chair Handgis said. She would like to see it all in one package, see how it lays out, and if budget will allow these changes. Ms. Lugo noted that the Commission could vote to make changes that would create a new proposal. The Commission needs to arrive at some specifics, and it doesn't have to be set in stone, but if they decide today, for example, that they would like the proposal to reflect one salary for the Council members, so now the Commission can get input, look at budgetary concerns, etc., and decide on some specifics. Ms. Wong noted that the list Mr. Takahashi gave itemizes his recommendations, but she questioned why Planning isn't in there. Mr. De Lima commented that Planning is pretty high at $99,000. Vice Chair Lundkvist stated that she feels today is not the day to make changes for the positions. They need a meeting just for that particular purpose. Chair Handgis stated that they will have another meeting, but it would be great to get some of that housekeeping done now by taking this plan and specifying items that can be addressed at their next meeting. Ms. Wong suggested that a letter be generated to the department heads specifically on the recommendations, and allow them to give feedback at their next scheduled meeting. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to table this matter to the next meeting and have Mr. Takahashi send a letter to the departments for their review and comment on the proposed pay plan. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Lundkvist. Discussion: Mr. De Lima noted that the proposal would be sent to all department heads. He asked whether the Commission can decrease salaries as well, to which Mr. Takahashi responded in the affirmative. The Commission has the authority to set salaries as it sees fit. Mr. De Lima commented that if they're not going to give the Mayor the top salary, he's not averse to decreasing other positions to have things fall in line. Then when the economy improves, he has no problem with making adjustments as well. Chair Handgis thought that they need to get this right and do more homework to get their arms around this. He does not want to get a bunch of input from 10, 15, or 20 people as that tends to contaminate everything. Conceptually, they have to agree with what's fair, where they start, whether they build this from the bottom up or top down starting with the Mayor. Mr. De Lima noted that their statements on both increases and decreases are all part of the minutes, and he thinks it would be healthy for them to send it out to departments so they know that the Commission will be discussing this topic further, possibly using the Mayor's salary as the top salary and possible recommendations for adjustments. Chair Handgis stated that he is for full disclosure, but didn't think they'd be in a position to respond to all the questions that may come up. Ms. Lugo advised that the Commission doesn't have to respond to questions posed. At this point, the Commission is just wanting input so that it can be of use to in its decision making. Ms. Stroh stated that her main concern had been eliminating the tier system and the base of the salary for everyone. They have to bring everyone up to the 21s' century, even if the budget isn't there, because they work hard for what they do. a Chair Handgis asked for the Commission's feedback on whether they want to disclose this to all the departments and welcome them to come in and give testimony at the next meeting. Mr. De Lima stated that it's up to the departments whether they submit written or oral testimony. They cannot tell them not to come to the meeting; it's up to them whether they come or not. He suggested that Mr. Takahashi's proposal as well as a copy of the minutes be attached as information. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to table this matter to the next meeting and send out a notice to all the department heads, including Council members, which should include Mr. Takahashi's proposal and a copy of the minutes, and an invitation to submit written comments. The motion was seconded by Ms. Stroh and unanimously carried. Mr. Takahashi stated that included in the proposal is information on the highest paid civil service employees salaries, the top salaries for fire fighters in the department, as well as top salaries for the police offers in the department. There is also a chart that shows the differences between the salaries of all the other positions in the counties, information on population, operating budget, number of employees in the department. Mr. Takahashi asked whether the Commission would like anything else provided to them before the next meeting. Members responded that they were satisfied with the information. Pursuant to Ms. Wong's request that they receive departments' comments as they come in, Ms. Lugo stated that they'll be provided to the Commission; however, she asked everyone be aware that they are prohibited by the sunshine law from having any discussion on those responses outside of the meeting. Two Commission members can speak about it amongst themselves so long as no commitment to vote is made, but be careful to not have serial communication about it. It's safest to not talk to each other till the Commission meeting. Ms. Stroh noted that she didn't see any comparisons on Council members and requested that that information be provided. Ms. Nitahara referred her to Exhibit 9 in the data book with said information. B) Communication No. 12 -01, dated February 14, 2012, from County of Kauai Salary Commission, requesting information regarding establishing non - bargaining employees' salaries. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to file Communication No. 12 -01 and request Mr. Takahashi to respond on behalf of the Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wong. U Discussion: Ms. Lugo commented that Mr. Takahashi can provide information to the first two questions, but as far as the third question, it's asking whether the Commission and /or Department of Human Resources is interested in participating with the other counties' salary commissions and sharing in the cost of a joint study of determining salary guidelines. Mr. De Lima stated that he has no problem with participating in a joint study, but he noted that these studies always tell you that you have to spend more money. Ms. Lugo suggested responding that the Commission would be interested in having a discussion about sharing the cost. Mr. De Lima suggested also asking more questions about where and whom they are talking about. Ms. Lugo summarized that Mr. Takahashi will respond to the letter. He'll provide the information requested for question one and two, and for number three he'll indicate that there is some interest and will ask for additional information to include cost. The motion was voted on and carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) Consider adjustments to new Fire Chief's starting salary. The Commission heard testimony from Toby Taniguchi, Chair of the Hawaii County Fire Commission, and Kaloa Robinson, its Vice Chair. Mr. Taniguchi stated the following: Having reviewed the Charter of the Salary Commission, which really is to appoint salaries for appointed directors and deputies so that their total salaries and benefits have a reasonable relationship to the compensation in the public and private sector, and having listened to the Commission this morning, he commends the Commission for its hard work on this arduous task. If he understood correctly, Corporation Counsel will be at their scale published on December 1, 2007, which is still in effect, and no action was taken on the pay scales. That being the case, he and Vice Chair Robinson are here today to strongly advocate to the Commission an adjustment of Chief Darren Rosario's and Deputy Fire Chief Renwick Victorino's compensation. Under confidential cover, he did transmit to the Salary Commission back in December a suggested salary rate. While both he and the Vice Chair do think that number contained in the confidential correspondence is still an appropriate number, they would like to adjust their recommendation after listening to the Commission's discussions and deliberations this morning. They now strongly advocate that the Commission immediately move the pay scale for the Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief to step F on A -18 and A -17. Mr. Taniguchi distributed a handout of the pay scale and asked the Commission to note that steps F through J are reserved for commission - appointed department and agency heads and deputies. He stated that position of Fire Chief is not an elected position or a position appointed by the Mayor. The Fire Chief is appointed by the Fire Commission, and only the Fire Commission has the ability to appoint or remove the Fire Chief from that particular office. Chief Rosario did go through a stringent screening process and was recently appointed in September 2011, replacing retiring Fire Chief Darryl Oliveira. That time, Chief Rosario was an Assistant Chief. He was earning approximately $115,000 to $120,000 a year. When he became Fire Chief he immediately went to step A on A -18, which lowered his gross compensation to $99,000 a year. While it is not his job, while it is not his career, the Fire Department is his calling, and that's why he's doing this. The Fire Commission does not think the salary he is receiving is appropriate for his scope of responsibility. They're talking about a $40 million department with 400+ uniformed personnel, 225 volunteers, the only department in the state that has EMS built into the department, the only department in the state that has water safety officers built into the department, a department that answers over 22,000 911 calls a year, deals with Hazmat, and is critical to the health and safety of the public. As the Fire Chief would not come and advocate for himself, nor would the Deputy Fire Chief, Mr. Taniguchi took this opportunity on behalf of the Fire Commission to come before the Salary Commission. Prior to this meeting, he and Vice Chair Robinson did talk to Fire's fiscal officer and were informed that the moneys are already in the Fire Department's budget. They would not need to request a new appropriation from the County Council. The Salary Commission could, in fact, if it were so inclined, go retroactive to the date of appointment, and funding would still be available in the current budget. Again, he understands that the Salary Commission is under a microscope and has an arduous task before it, but he thinks it's a gross injustice to the Fire Chief to take a $15- 20,000 pay cut upon taking the helm with more responsibility for the department. As was discussed earlier today, it's also not in line with the Police Chief. The Police Chief is currently at A- 18(F), and the Fire Chief Rosario is at step A. Thus, they are proposing step F at $114,768. Y MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to give the Fire Chief an increase to A -18(F) at $114,768 and the Deputy Fire Chief an increase to A -17(F) at $109,296 effective March 16, 2012. The motion was seconded by Ms. Stroh. Discussion: Mr. De Lima stated that the major reason for doing that is because basically the Fire Chief is taking a cut in pay, but the bottom line is it's justifiable to have public safety personnel paid appropriately. While Chair Handgis agreed, he stated that procedurally that does set a precedent for the Commission going forward in the next meeting in terms of what they're trying to do with the compensation review plan. Mr. Taniguchi stated that the key point is that they did the homework relative to finances in the fiscal office, and the money is available immediately. Chair Handgis stated that as citizens of the community, the Commission respects Mr. Taniguchi's and Mr. Robinson's commitment for what they do and the passion and the intellect they use in terms of verbalizing their position. Again, he just has a problem with setting a precedent. Mr. De Lima clarified that by voting the $114,768 salary today, he's still not averse to rolling back peoples' salaries, including the Fire Chief and the Police Chief, if they decide that the Mayor should only get paid $109,000. He's comfortable with rolling back peoples' salaries. He doesn't think they should do that necessarily. He would like to make some adjustments to the Mayor, perhaps to $115,000, because it would take effect down the road, but in terms of this problem right now, the last Fire Chief was paid more than 114. This goes back to the tiered approach and the impact it has, so he's trying to address this immediate concern right now, and then when they meet again, everything is back on the table. Mr. Takahashi noted that the effective date should be either the Is' or the 161' of a given month, otherwise it will present a problem. Mr. De Lima noted that the increase would be effective March 16, 2012. Mr. Robinson added that they have one last comparison. They also compared Hawaii Island to the other counties, mainly Maui. When looking at the personnel, Hawaii County has over 645 in the Fire Department. Maui has 310, but the Fire Chief of Maui gets paid $126,900. It's a significant difference. Chair Handgis stated that it doesn't make anything right. They have to do what's right within what they're doing in the County. 13 Mr. Taniguchi stated that just for comparison, some of the Battalion Chiefs, whose base is at $104,000, receive built -in overtime. If they get called out to an incident, it can run up to $120,000 for Fire Captains and Battalion Chiefs. Chair Handgis stated that for the record going forward, the Commission has to look at the whole grand picture of what's fair. Chair Handgis called for a vote, and the motion carried unanimously. The Commission recessed at 11:37 a.m. and reconvened at 11:50 a.m. B) Communication No. 11 -02, dated March 7, 2011, from Ronald K. Takahashi, Director of Human Resources, to Gerald E. 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. Ms. Lugo noted that at the last Commission meeting when this item was taken up, there was a motion made by Mr. De Lima to amend what Mr. Takahashi had done, which was to place Ms. Iboshi at A- 19(D), and adjust her salary to A- 19(C). That motion did not pass and no other motion was made, but this is still pending before the Commission. The Commission has to ratify what Mr. Takahashi did or propose something different. Ms. Lugo's opinion at the time was that in absence of the Commission taking any action to either ratify or amend, the item remains pending; and Ms. Iboshi's salary remains at what Mr. Takahashi had set it at. The Commission now needs to take action to either ratify what he did or amend it. This is continuing from the last meeting. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved that the Commission ratify the A -19(D) salary that Mr. Takahashi had set for the Prosecuting Attorney; however, effective March 16, 2012, the Prosecuting Attorney receive a salary at A- 19(C). The motion was seconded by Ms. Stroh. Discussion: Mr. De Lima stated that under the existing Salary Ordinance, if a person takes a position, the person has to roll back to step A. While they may all agree that it's not appropriate, that is what the law is now. Ms. Iboshi took the position of Prosecutor from First Deputy. She assumed more responsibilities. What Mr. De Lima is suggesting is she shouldn't take a pay decrease for that. By setting her pay at step C, she would not take a pay increase, and she wasn't elected to that position so it shouldn't be automatically a step D. That was the point of dispute of at the last meeting. Mr. Kimura was being paid A- 19(D). What was proposed was that Ms. Iboshi, when she assumed the role of Prosecutor, be paid at the same D level as Mr. Kimura, but the present law suggests that when a person takes the new position, it rolls back to step A. Mr. Takahashi interpreted it to mean that when a person steps in from First Deputy to Prosecutor that you don't have to roll it back to A, you can pay D; and Mr. De Lima is saying that's not what the law says. At the same time, he doesn't think she should get a salary decrease, so that's why he proposed C, so she still gets an increase but it's not to the full level that Mr. Kimura made. Vice Chair Lundkvist noted her previous comment that she doesn't see any reason Ms. Iboshi can't get the same salary as Mr. Kimura at A- 19(D). Ms. Iboshi stated that her current salary is $113,580. She stepped into the shoes of Mr. Kimura. She is here today to answer questions the Commission may have and let them know her background. The law is that the First Deputy steps into the shoes of the elected Prosecutor. It's in the Charter. The First Deputy is there side by side with the elected Prosecutor and has to do the work. Ms. Iboshi further stated the following: She's been in the Prosecutor's Office for over 31 years and will have had 32 years by the time she retires. She will be retiring in December of this year when the elected Prosecutor will be confirmed. That person, even if they have no experience, will get the same amount as what she's receiving now. She has been the First Deputy since 1992 and had been ready to step into the Prosecutor's shoes if it were vacated. With her today is the current First Deputy, Ms. Dale Ross, who has 26 years under her belt. They have three offices. No other Prosecutor's office has three offices covering a 4,000 square mile area. They have over 31 deputies, and they have to administer a staff of about 100. They also have a volunteer corps of at least 10 people who come into their office, so effectively there are about 110 people they supervise all the time. She thinks Chair Handgis is right, these are tough fiscal times, and she thinks she brings value to the job either as the First Deputy or the elected Prosecutor. While she doesn't like "tooting her own horn," she is going to let the Commission know what she has been doing for the past 30 years so that they are aware of it. Basically, they have three "legs of a stool" indicating what their prosecuting function is. Their mission is "the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney pursues justice with integrity (doing the right thing), and with commitment (with passion and the right way)." For those who know her, they know that she doesn't work a 40 hour week. She doesn't work a 50 hour week. She probably works a 60 hour week and can still remember when she first started off, she calculated her pay and found she was making less than minimum wage. This is a passion, otherwise one wouldn't stay in the job. There have been deputies in their office that have left to go into defense work and are making more now after 3 -4 years than a Deputy Prosecutor after 5 -7 years. Unlike the Corporation Counsel's office, they do have a range but don't put everyone at the top, because they bring in new attorneys and have to train them. The functions have been set up so that the traditional way of prosecution is a core function. They have the prosecutors, victim counselors, investigators, and clerical staff that process the 22,000 cases and more. When Mr. Kimura became Prosecutor, she and Mr. Kimura started looking more at improving the criminal justice system. That's the other lid, which is really working on how the system works together, all the criminal justice agencies doing a better job. They worked on a lot of things and brought a lot of money, all based on relationship and collaboration. Because they have an established process of improving the system and an ongoing group that work in the criminal justice system to make it better, they've established credibility. The Prosecutor's budget of almost $8 million is comprised largely of grant money, for which Ms. Iboshi is the main grant writer, working creatively toward obtaining grants. About 24% or more of their budget is grant funded. She and Mr. Kimura share the same philosophy that the Prosecutor should do more than just the traditional prosecution and that is try to improve the system as well. One of the recommendations of the Cost of Government Committee had been to use more technology, and this year they obtained a large grant to connect all the criminal justice partners in doing their work. Also, the Charter was changed so that the Prosecutor's Office can now do research and make recommendations on prevention and early intervention to the policy makers (legislature to the County Council to the Mayor). They have gotten a lot of money in this area that they didn't have before. They have also gotten at least one competitive grant for elder abuse and financial exploitation, a whole initiative based on a vulnerable group; and over the years they've also done things for children, domestic violence, community empowerment, sexual assault, all those kinds of things that make the community safer and better. They have a $200,000 grant to build a Big Island juvenile intake assessment process. Hopefully that will be a continuing money source over the years. They received a three -year grant for prevention of drug and violence and pregnancy for teens called the HI -TOP program, and recently 0 got a Department of Transportation training grant of $82,000 for statewide training. Because of their office, they've been able to do training statewide, since 2006, of all the prosecutors. They have a $25,000 grant for violence against women; and a grant from DEA for overtime moneys for drug trafficking in the County. Mr. De Lima asked Ms. Iboshi whether she thinks they should follow the law. Ms. Iboshi responded that her understanding is that Mr. Takahashi and Ms. Lugo looked at it, and it's legal. Mr. De Lima stated that Mr. Takahashi interpreted the law. The law says whoever steps in that position gets rolled back to step A. Ms. Iboshi is stepping into that position. Mr. Takahashi interpreted it that because Ms. Iboshi was the First Deputy, she can get the same level. Mr. De Lima thinks that was the wrong decision. It has nothing to do with Ms. Iboshi, who is one of the finest people he knows. Ms. Iboshi works harder than what she even testified about. The people under Ms. Iboshi respect her, and he would say they love her. That's the highest compliment they can pay anyone in public service. So it's not about her. What it comes down to is that they, the Salary Commission, have to follow the policy; and the policy was to roll back salaries when someone took the position. It didn't have anything to do with whether they serve as First Deputy, whether they have five years previous experience or ten years previous experience. It said that when a person steps into a position and are new to that position, the person gets rolled back to step A. Mr. Takahashi thought that was a bad result. Mr. De Lima agrees it's a bad result; and they should rectify it, but he couldn't buy giving her the D step. He didn't think a pay decrease was justified either, that's why he suggested a step where she would still get a pay increase, but not at the full level. He thought that was a fair compromise. In response to Ms. Wong's inquiry about what Ms. Iboshi would recommend for the position, Ms. Iboshi stated that the person who gets the Prosecutor's position should get paid the same amount it's currently at. She did want to bring up, however, that Ms. Ross remains at $99,000, and they couldn't do anything about it because of the way the Charter was set up. Ms. Iboshi also noted that the salaries are affected by furloughs, and that is not reflected in the amount. Ms. Wong asked Mr. Takahashi what the triggers are that move the salaries. Mr. Takahashi explained that the Salary Commission set up this current pay scale with a pay plan where there are automatic step increases for every two years of service. However, the Salary Commission froze the 17 step movement plan because of the economic times, so at this point there is no mechanism to automatically move to the next step. Vice Chair Lundkvist reiterated that she feels if someone is duly qualified to step into a position when the incumbent leaves, that person should get that same salary. Chair Handgis commented that his background is in business, not government, where invariably, a line of succession is created where people are mentored and brought up through that. There's also a compensation package involved. Ms. Iboshi stated that she's been the First Deputy since 1992. She has done trial work. The First Deputy is basically the chief officer for the whole office, but what she's contributed because of the relationships that she and Mr. Kimura had is bringing money to the table. So it's not like a regular compensation package. They do extra to bring money to the County, and unlike the private sector, they do not get compensated for it. Vice Chair Lundkvist stated that they keep going back to this system, which is flawed. They all know that putting Ms. Iboshi back to A -19(A) is ridiculous. Mr. De Lima is saying let's skip over A, skip over B, and give her a C, which is a difference of $3,000. That being the case, they could just let her remain at D. Mr. De Lima stated that they could do that, but that would be sacrificing the principle which is in place right now. They would be minimizing the impact without basically closing their eyes, so that's why he's saying it's a compromise. Mr. Takahashi explained that he's not attempting to debate this, but he would like to explain his actions. When the past Salary Commission developed this pay plan with the schedule and the step movements, they looked at the various situations that could arise. The Mayor gets elected, Council gets elected, the Prosecutor gets elected, so newly elected officials would start at the A step. That was one of the situations that they envisioned. The Commission addressed re- election by maintaining the re- elected official's current level and by continuing with the step movements. Steps A through E are set up for elected officials with the maximum eight years. The second part of the schedule was primarily reserved for department heads that were appointed by commissions, who were referred to as career -type appointees who could go beyond eight years. Thus, the Commission provided for another four or more steps beyond the schedule for the elected or appointed department heads. The other situation that was addressed by the Salary Commission concerned a Mayor getting re- elected and reappointing the department head. That department head would maintain his /her current step and continue on the salary schedule to be able to receive step movements every two years and again reach the maximum E step. Mr. Takahashi believes the Commission did not take into account the situation that occurred with Ms. Iboshi when the current Prosecutor would resign or retire, and where the First Deputy by law would assume the position. Therefore, when Mr. Kimura retired, he sent the letter to the Salary Commission asking the Commission to maintain her step D because she had earned those steps through her career and there was no choice but for her to take over his position as First Deputy. Ms. Iboshi, as First Deputy, was at A- 18(D). As Mr. Kimura explained in the letter, the current pay plan did not address this situation. Mr. Takahashi agreed. The Commission back then did not envision or take this into account. He believes that if they had, they would have maintained the current step because of the movements within, and that's the reason he took that action, which again is subject to ratification of the Salary Commission. Chair Handgis noted that Mr. Takahashi was put on the spot and made an executive decision. Mr. De Lima stated that he understands what Mr. Takahashi did. He just disagrees with it. The point is that Mr. Takahashi was only guessing at what he thought the Commission would do. The bottom line is they were all smart people and could've figured out the possibility. The most important point is that when directors leave and the deputy becomes the director, what happens under the present system? Do they roll back to step A? Mr. Takahashi responded in the affirmative. Mr. De Lima stated that every other person gets rolled back except the First Deputy because of what Mr. Takahashi decided to do. He understands why Mr. Takahashi did it; he disagrees with it; and thinks the best thing for them to do is compromise. The long and short of it is that the Deputy Corporation Counsel is interpreting that Mr. Takahashi's executive decision continues to be the force of law until there are five votes one way or the other on this matter. It may very well be that they will never get five votes. Chair Handgis asked if there was a functioning Salary Commission at that point. Mr. De Lima stated that it doesn't matter because the Charter does not delegate in their absence the power of the Commission to an individual. It's a matter of policy. If that were the situation, the Mayor could appoint the Director of Human Resources. If he decided he wasn't going to appoint any Salary Commission members, then the director could always make decisions in lieu of having a Salary Commission. z Chair Handgis thought it did matter. Mr. De Lima is taking the legal position, but morally and ethically if a person on the spot who is running a department makes a decision, they have to back him up. Mr. Takahashi rebutted that the Charter provides that the First Deputy automatically takes over as Prosecutor when the Prosecutor leaves. There are no similar provisions for any other department head. If Mr. Takahashi or any other department head were to leave, it is not automatic that the deputy takes over. It's up to the Mayor to appoint a new director, and that's why they would go back to step A, based on the plan. Mr. De Lima didn't think that was correct, noting that acting directors get paid the A -19(A) prior to Council approval. Mr. Takahashi noted, however, that the deputy director doesn't automatically take over as the director. Mr. De Lima didn't think that was totally accurate. In function, if a director leaves, the Mayor in most cases makes someone acting until Council approval. And during that period of time, the person gets the A -19(A) pay. Mr. Takahashi stated that if that action occurs, yes. Ms. Wong stated that she's a little uncomfortable just in general that someone else is making more than the Mayor anyway; and this position is making more than the Mayor. There's a motion on the table that she thinks is two -part, that they ratify the current salary, and she would like to ratify and affirm HR's executive decision at that current rate of $113,580. The second part of the motion is to do A- 19(C). She'd like to hold off addressing this position as they're looking at all departments at the next meeting. In looking at the amounts, what they're talking about, really, is value, and recognizing the value. So she's not going for a compromise, but instead would go for what value they're getting; and she'd like to respect the position of HR in making the decision. They are in a place to look at the overall set salaries, so they should look at it as a whole at the next meeting. Chair Handgis summarized that Ms. Wong is saying $113,580 is the right number subject to review of the whole thing, that they're not setting a precedent, but that they're supporting the decision made by an executive in the County that was on the line who made a decision. He agrees with Ms. Wong that they support those people, and if they find later with additional facts as they work through this, and if the economy changes, then they look at that position and that office, which may result in decreases, but it would be spread instead of surgical. Mr. De Lima stated that he's not for splitting the motion, but he's okay with postponing this for the next meeting. O Ms. Lugo noted that the motion on the floor is still Mr. De Lima's motion, which is to ratify what Mr. Takahashi has done up to this point and to adjust Ms. Iboshi's salary to step C starting March 16. They're still in discussion, and Mr. De Lima has not amended his motion. Mr. De Lima stated that the motion to table would be a subsidiary motion that would be in order. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved to table the matter to the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wong and unanimously carried. NEXT MEETING DATE The Commission scheduled its next meeting for April 30, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Lundkvist and unanimously carried. The meeting adjourned at 12:44 p.m. vym 0 Respectfully submitted, George J. Handgis, Chair