Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-25 Minutes Salary Commission COUNTY OF HAWAII SALARY COMMISSION April 25, 2013 MINUTES Chairperson Lundkvist called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. in the County Council Room, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii. Present: Ms. Karolyn P. Lundkvist, Chairperson Ms. Pudding Lassiter, Vice Chairperson Ms. Marcella L. Stroh, Secretary Mr. Brian De Lima, Member Mr. Michael Sumja, Member Excused: Mr. George Handgis, 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 (via video conferencing at West Hawaii Civil Center) Ms. Joney Nitahara, Human Resources Manager Ms. Jennifer Sakamoto, Human Resources Program Specialist Ms. Velma Y. Menezes, Secretary-Reporter STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Members of the public, Gertrude Pauline, John Callahan, and Tim Reese spoke against pay raises, while Rick Damerville, Toby Taniguchi, and Don Mende spoke in favor of increases for the Mayor, Corporation Counsel, Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief, and Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief. Margaret Wilk spoke on the need to look at the total package for the County Council. The Commission recessed at 10:34 a.m. and reconvened at 10:36 a.m. 5-1-awafi County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Emp foyer MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2013 MOTION: Ms. Lassiter moved that the minutes of March 27, 2013 be approved as circulated. The motion was seconded by Ms. Stroh and unanimously carried. OLD BUSINESS A) Discussion and appropriate action on the necessity of having an elected Secretary from the Salary Commission based on the fact that there is a staff recording secretary preparing the minutes and administering Commission support. Chairperson Lundkvist deferred the above item to the end of the agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) Review of existing pay plan to include restructuring current salaries of executives and elected officials and adjusting accordingly. o Discussion, deliberation, and appropriate action on the subcommittee's (permitted interaction group's) March 27, 2013 report and recommendations. MOTION: Ms. Lassiter moved that the subcommittee's recommendations be approved. The motion was seconded by Ms. Stroh. Discussion: Mr. De Lima noted that the Mayor's present salary is $109,000, and one of his highest subordinates is at $127,000, based upon the proposed increase for the Police Chief in the chart that was distributed. The data shows the highest subordinate's salary is $123,624, and that $123,624 is being used to justify the Police Chiefs increase to $127,335. That $127,335 is being used to propose the increase of the Mayor's salary to $131,154. Basically, the highest existing subordinate pay is not even one of the Mayor's cabinet members or assistant cabinet members; it's actually a ranking officer in the department for which they don't have any direct control. The Charter gives the Salary Commission control only over the salaries that are listed in the data sheet, and they're only proposing an adjustment in the Mayor's salary because of the highest subordinate, again, for which they don't have any control. The Charter charges the Salary Commission a responsibility to make adjustments. They took an oath to be fair to the employees in totality, so it's their responsibility to ensure that there is pay equity. 2 The way he looks at is there has been no salary increases whatsoever for any of these positions since 2008, which was the last adjustment that was made when the then-Salary Commission made an adjustment based on automatic step increases. Therefore, he believes they should make some adjustments. The question is should the adjustments be as proposed? He thinks the subcommittee spent a lot of time in consultation with the Human Resources director and staff to come up with the numbers proposed. Mr. De Lima understands Mr. Taniguchi's point about the Fire Chief, and they have had some discussion about that. Mr. De Lima recalled that the Commission, back in January 2012, did make an adjustment to the Fire Chief's salary. The Fire Chief had wanted an adjustment higher than what the Commission provided, but they did set the Fire Chief's salary at the same rate as the Police Chief's back then. While Mr. De Lima is open minded to making appropriate adjustments, he does not think he has the information to make the appropriate adjustment today; but he is not proposing that they delay action on the balance of the recommendations. Mr. De Lima also commented that they are on an island where a lot of families are struggling to make ends meet. Those comments were not lost on him. He believes that the Mayor's public comments about his role and responsibility and that he would donate the salary increase is in recognition of that reality. One cannot help but have empathy for these struggling families, and he doesn't think that by making the necessary adjustments so that public servants are compensated fairly diminishes their appreciation for the struggles that many families have. Obviously, making an adjustment as proposed is not going to take away significant resources that are being used to meet the County's needs, but they do need to make some adjustments. Lastly, Mr. De Lima commented on the recommendation made by Mr. Damerville regarding the Corporation Counsel and the Prosecuting Attorney. Mr. Damerville hit the nail on the head when he said that there are certain positions for which it would be very difficult to replace with qualified people even with the salaries they are proposing. The only time that people would take such a position is if they're going to retire or they have a calling to fulfill that role, because obviously in the private sector a talented attorney can make much more than what is being proposed here. Also, there are a lot of attorneys that would not consider taking a job even for the short term of four years. Remember, when the Mayor asks someone to serve, it's not serving to fill out a career; it's serving for the term of that elected official. A person leaving an established law practice to take a position serving the Mayor as the head of the law firm for the County will be giving up a lot to make what perhaps a young associate would make after five years. So Mr. De Lima thinks that's something that they should look at in terms of adjustments. He's not for disturbing the recommendations, but he does agree with Mr. Damerville that that's a wage that should be adjusted. 3 Chairperson Lundkvist stated that the Commission needs to look at this and see where they're going. Everyone's grieving about the Mayor, but there are other positions also that they need to consider. Ms. Lassiter stated that Mr. De Lima made a very fine point about looking at the appointees that aren't replaceable like prosecutors in the Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Fire Chief, and Police Chief. Those people will be there for a long time, and they have big responsibilities. The Corporation Counsel has 25 employees or so and needs to be recognized for the high responsibility, as well as the Police Chief. If they don't keep up with the demand of what their job structure is and they can't replace them, they will never have a well organized running staff of people unless they do accommodate them. Ms. Lassiter stated that she appreciates Mr. Kenoi saying that he doesn't want the raise, and he would give it to the United Way. Perhaps he shouldn't be considered at this time, if that is what he so said, but she feels that it's really important that they hear what Mr. De Lima said and recognize the fact that many of these positions are only for four years. Working on this subcommittee, she can see where they could restructure the salary on some and for others perhaps just leave them where they are. It's true that they don't have enough mango trees out there to cut and pay and not tax the public on this, but on the other hand, the public has to recognize that these are people that are leaders. If the County doesn't have a leader to help them, then it places them in an undesirable position and everyone's fighting for apples that way. She knows it's a terrible time, the economy is bad, but if they don't take care of the people that take care of them, then they're lost. Mr. Sumja stated that he was part of the committee that helped put this recommendation together, and he hears what the people are saying; he hears what the Mayor has said. They lack information on some of these specifics that they need to have. MOTION: Mr. Sumja moved to defer this matter until they have more information that is required to make an appropriate decision. The motion was seconded by Ms. Stroh. Discussion: Ms. Stroh stated that she agrees with Mr. Sumja. They should delay these proceedings on the recommendation that the subcommittee made in lieu of all the testimonies and needing more information. Mr. De Lima stated that he has no objections to deferring it with recognition by this body that if they defer it, they're agreeing that there won't be pay raises the next fiscal year, because the money is going to be approved for the next fiscal year. That would mean if they take action during the next fiscal year, the pay raises probably won't be implemented until July 1, 2014 because this fiscal year started July 1, 2013 and ends June 30, 2014. 4 He was okay with what was being proposed. He did see some need for adjustments, but he wasn't suggesting that they defer the whole matter. However, seeing that some of the Commissioners are uncomfortable with it, and they have only five members present, which means all five would have to agree to pass whatever they propose, and it's obvious that they are not going to get the five votes to pass the recommendation today, he is okay with deferring the matter. He just wants to be sure everyone understands that there isn't going to be any salary adjustments until July 1, 2014. If they passed the proposal today, with the Council meeting in early May, the Council would be required to make the necessary adjustments to whatever they adopted today. That was the reason they scheduled the meeting today, because the budget proposal has to be before the budget is approved by the Council in order to factor in whatever adjustments they would require. The motion was voted on unanimously carried. Mr. De Lima suggested that the permitted interaction group be given 60 days to review the proposal in light of further information they would like. The Commission can meet subsequent to that and meet again in July. Ms. Lassiter stated that if the Commission defers this matter for one full year, in the meantime they could have taken some sort of action. They had some very good testimony today. There were people who came testified that this is hogwash, there shouldn't be any raises; and they had people who were in support of it. Personally she would like to make the issue happen sooner than later, especially since they have a budgetary change coming July 1 for the new fiscal year. Mr. De Lima noted that the budget is passed in May; and he believes that at the end of May the final reading for the budget will occur. On May 1 the administration submits adjustments to the budget or sometime shortly thereafter, and then the Council takes final action on it. Mr. De Lima's point is that he was prepared today to enact some adjustments, and he would be open minded to other amendments. There's some information they wouldn't have today regarding the Fire Chief and Police Chief, but he wouldn't support an increase for the Police Chief above what is being proposed because it puts helter-skelter into everything else. However, they already made a decision to defer the matter, and that was already voted on. The next question is when will the subcommittee meet to discuss whatever they want to discuss so that they're comfortable in supporting a recommendation? He was comfortable supporting the subcommittee's recommendation today; others weren't ready. Therefore, whenever they feel they are ready to meet, they should meet, then bring the report back to the full Commission to discuss and make adjustments, if necessary. 5 The Commission recessed at 11:05 a.m. to determine when the final budget action would be voted on and reconvened at 11:08 a.m. Mr. Takahashi stated that while he's not disagreeing with Mr. De Lima, the Commission is free to take action and make effective dates of salaries on any date. It doesn't have to be July 1 of a fiscal year. It's true that if the Commission doesn't take action now, the County won't have the opportunity to budget for increases for the next fiscal year. However, that doesn't preclude them from taking action on December 1 or January 1, as examples. As just noted, the Fire Chief's salary was raised in January 2012; and that situation became binding and final. It was up to the department or the County to find the money to accommodate that increase as was effectuated by this body. Yes, there's a deadline if the Commission wants to include raises in next fiscal year's budget, but if the Commission takes the action subsequent to the passing of that budget, the action is still binding and the department still needs to find the money. Mr. Sumja asked how the departments find the money. Mr. Takahashi responded that they find the money by looking at their entire budget and making adjustments as necessary. Mr. De Lima stated that the important point is whether they are going to be responsible or not. In January 2012 when the Commission took that action(Fire Chief's pay increase), it was because the department and the executive came in and suggested that they would fund the increase and find the money to do so. That's a big difference than the Commission imposing its will and then requiring the departments to go and find the money. His point is that the Mayor and the Finance Director are saying that the Commission needs to take into account that money is tight and that they are proposing a balanced budget. In other words, the planned expenditures are being handled by the planned income. What is the planned income? It's the tax values and the tax rate to determine what real property taxes are going to be. If the Commission takes action after the adjustments and calculations are made, even though it's a small amount, the Commission is basically putting their financial plan into imbalance, however small. The difficulty for the departments is how do they make those adjustments? As one of the Commissioners, he's saying if they're going to make adjustments, it should be made prior to the County finalizing their financial plan, following an orderly budgetary process. If any department wants to come in for adjustments during mid-year, the question the Commission will ask, and the question they asked in January 2012, is how do they plan to fund this? Basically, they say they're going to do it within their budget. Each department can make adjustments within the department by just notifying the Council of what adjustments they've made. They're not required to have approval. Mr. De Lima recalled that the last time the permitted interaction group met, they came up with a report, then they submitted the report to the 6 Commission. The Commission had to receive the report, and then schedule a subsequent meeting to take action, so he doesn't think they can do it in the timeframe being proposed. The best thing to do is schedule another meeting, give the sunshine notice, and then individual Commission members can request information that they believe is necessary, then they come back at the next meeting and go through it. They can run through the list of proposals people submit. Or, they can do what he thought they were going to do, which is forget about any increases for now until they are satisfied that they have the appropriate will to make the adjustments that they all agree should be made. Mr. Sumja agreed that action should be deferred to allow them to analyze it as they should. He doesn't think they should give any raises this year; they should wait till next year. Ms. Stroh stated that there are only a few from this listing that really needs to be adjusted, not the whole list. She would like Mr. Takahashi's feedback on that and his help. If the subcommittee could meet and discuss some of the discretionary things that have come up, which are just a few, she'd feel comfortable with that. To delay on some positions that haven't gotten these raises is a travesty. Regarding the timeframe, Ms. Stebbins stated that there's not really a lot of time between now and May 13, but the subcommittee does needs the opportunity to meet, then they report back to the Commission. Thereafter, at a subsequent meeting, the Commission can take action. Another way to go about gathering information doesn't have to be through the subcommittee process. The Commission has ex-officio members, one being the Director of Human Resources, who serves in an advisory capacity. He's a resource to the Commission. If the Commission puts questions to him for specific information it feels is necessary, the director can come back with that at the next meeting and that might enable the Commission to make a decision, but as far as gathering information it's not necessary that the Commission go through the more time-consuming investigatory subcommittee. Mr. De Lima stated that the Commission is governed by the sunshine law. One person can go to Mr. Takahashi; one person can talk to another person, and that's it. They cannot have serial communications. They cannot collectively go to Mr. Takahashi, and they cannot have a discussion outside a public forum. The reason for a permitted interaction group is so that people can, with less than a quorum, meet, discuss, see if the information is satisfactory, review information, discuss the adjustments, get some feedback from one another. That's all permissible under a permitted interaction group. If they don't authorize a permitted interaction group to meet prior to the next Salary Commission then they really don't take advantage of the opportunity for three of their members to engage in discussion, do some further fact finding and deliberation. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved that within the next sixty days, the permitted interaction group meet, review the public 7 input, confer with the Human Resources director, and revise the proposal accordingly, whereupon the Chairperson can schedule a meeting in July after the permitted interaction group has completed its job. The motion was seconded by Ms. Lassiter. Discussion: Ms. Stebbins summarized that the motion is for the permitted interaction group to meet for more information from Mr. Takahashi, and the next meeting will be scheduled at some point in July for the permitted interaction group to come back and report further recommendations. The motion was voted on and carried unanimously. Chairperson Lundkvist asked whether, in doing this, it would be for 2014, such as what occurred with the Fire Chief. When would their action take effect? Ms. Stebbins advised that it's for the Commission to decide. It's within the Commission's authority to set salaries, and the Commission is not specifically limited to only setting salaries in conjunction with the new budget being proposed, although as Mr. De Lima pointed out, there are certain reasons to doing it that way. How the Commission does it, when it's to take effect, is for the Commission to decide. They can discuss the timeframe. OLD BUSINESS A) Discussion and appropriate action on the necessity of having an elected Secretary from the Salary Commission based on the fact that there is a staff recording secretary preparing the minutes and administering Commission support. Chairperson Lundkvist stated that this is the only Commission that has a secretary with a secretary. Ms. Menezes takes the minutes and records the meeting. She's paid to do this. As the Chairperson, she collaborates with Ms. Menezes, if need be, on what was said, what wasn't said. To have another person called the secretary to check the paid secretary doesn't make sense to her, and she doesn't know of any other commission that has a secretary on top of a secretary. Mr. Sumja noted that when a secretary is assigned the position, which would be a commission member, it's a different kind of a secretary than what Ms. Menezes does for them. Ms. Stebbins stated that it's her understanding that the Salary Commission's secretary is a position that has just evolved per practice. At some point in the past it was decided that among the officers to be selected, Chair and Vice Chair, there would also be a secretary. It's not specifically in 8 the Salary Commission's rules that they're required to have a secretary. The rules don't even address it, and it doesn't delineate any duties. Whether the Commission wants to have a secretary is really up to its members. They're not required to per the rules. Since it's been a longstanding practice, she would say they would need to take action to eliminate that position, so that would require a motion and an affirmative vote. The Commission decided at the last meeting that the secretary would be responsible for coordinating with Ms. Menezes to review the minutes since they're done in a summary fashion so the secretary would help to just check that the minutes were adequately reflecting everything. Of course the Commission members are all reviewing the minutes anyway, but that's essentially what the secretary has been doing. It's entirely up to the Commission whether or not they want to keep the position. Chairperson Lundkvist stated that if that was in the rules, she doesn't believe they had a secretary doing that. The Chair of the Salary Commission checks with the paid secretary regarding the minutes, as in any other commission, so now they are going to have two of them checking with the minutes that the paid secretary is doing. Mr. De Lima stated that he appreciates the logic of the Chair's thinking, and he thinks the reason they evolved into a role of electing a secretary was just in recognition that we're all volunteer members. They have the chair, and they have the vice chair, and he thinks they decided that they wanted to elect a secretary, so they did it. He doesn't think it's a big deal that they elected a secretary, and they shouldn't get so caught up in the intricacies of their own procedures that they take up valuable time. He's honored that Ms. Stroh is their secretary, and hopefully when Chair Lundkvist steps down at the end of her term as chair, they would see fit that Ms. Lassiter would be elevated to the chair, and Ms. Stroh would be elevated to vice chair, and they elect another secretary who would be able to serve for a few more years so they would have some pecking order in terms of taking responsibility for their volunteer positions on the board. His suggestion is that they file this agenda item and move on. MOTION: Mr. De Lima moved that the agenda item be filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sumja. The motion failed to carry with Chairperson Lundkvist voting no. Ms. Stebbins noted that the motion didn't carry because a unanimous vote was required. A quorum is a quorum of the majority of the members to which the Commission is entitled. Ms. Stroh stated that it really doesn't matter to her because she's a volunteer for the community, and whatever that this Commission would like, she would adhere to. Mr. Sumja suggested they leave the matter alone and let it die. What's important is that there are two other Commissioners who never show up. 9 Chairperson Lundkvist responded that she understands what he's saying, but he has his view and she has hers. She doesn't think Ms. Menezes, who's doing the work, ever had a Commissioner check her work. Mr. De Lima stated that to him, this is improperly on the agenda, because they already voted on it; and someone has to be in the minority in order to bring up something at a subsequent meeting. What they voted on at the last meeting was unanimously carried. No one was in opposition. They put something on the agenda that shouldn't have been placed on the agenda, and he would ask the Chair not to put this on the subsequent agenda. Chairperson Lundkvist noted that it was on the agenda today, they voted on it, and it didn't carry. Ms. Stebbins stated that there was a motion to just file this communication. That motion did not pass. They remain at status quo. Since this is the Chairperson's item, if the Chairperson were to make any kind of motion, she should relinquish the chairmanship to the vice chair. Because there are only five members here, they have to be unanimous to take any action. Mr. De Lima reiterated that his point of order was this was placed on the agenda, and it shouldn't have been placed on the agenda. The Chair was the one that placed it on the agenda, and he believes she has the authority to not place it on the subsequent agenda. He would ask that she reconsider placing this matter on the future agenda, as obviously the staff is listening to her directives. Chairperson Lundkvist noted that from what she sees, the matter is settled and will not be placed on the agenda. NEXT MEETING DATE Ms. Stebbins noted that the Commission passed a motion to have the next meeting occur in July. Mr. De Lima suggested arranging to have the meeting in the County Council Room again so that the public has an opportunity to go to the meeting sites in Waimea and Kona where video conferencing is available. After some discussion, the Commission decided to hold a meeting, possibly on June 12, at the Prosecutor's conference room, to receive the subcommittee's report, followed by a subsequent meeting during the third week of July to discuss and deliberate on the recommendations. 10 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, c (ti 6 Karolyn P. Lundkvist, Chair vym 11