“The Garden Island,” Letters to the Editor, Thursday, December 16, 2010
I want to thank Horace Stoessel and Tracy Bukoski for the opportunity to clarify the issues surrounding an allegedly improper 2009 pay raise for the County Clerk.
First, regarding the possibility of returning salary money to the County, Councilmembers (2009-2010 term) have received calculations of pay to return to the County that are equivalent to furlough cuts. Councilmembers wanted to do so in solidarity with County workers who are taking furlough days. So giving a portion of one’s salary back to the County is possible.
Was the Clerk’s pay raise improperly authorized? Mr. Stoessel cites a 2007 Salary Commission Resolution, but he doesn’t mention a more recent and relevant 2009 Salary Commission Resolution. According to the County Charter, that resolution is the law unless the Council by 2/3 vote rejected the 2009 Salary Commission Resolution within 60 days of Salary Commission adoption. Since the record shows no vote to reject, we can conclude that the 2009 Salary Commission Resolution is the law for the 2009 pay raise.
Article 3 (c) of the 2009 Resolution says that the County Clerk’s annual salary is subject to the performance review requirements in Article 1(d) entitled “Requirements for salary increase.” That section lists three things the Director of Personnel must receive to meet the requirements:
1. A memo from the appointing authority (in this case, the County Council) at least 30 days prior to the increase certifying that the Clerk has been evaluated according to procedures established by the Director of Personnel.
2. A copy of the Clerk’s completed performance evaluation showing that the Clerk has met or exceeded job requirements (for example, has achieved a rating of three points or higher in a five point scale) for the appraisal period.
3. The appointing authority’s recommendation of a pay raise, based on the performance evaluation. Under the Charter, the appointing authority of the County Clerk is the County Council. The Council cannot act as a body except by vote at a posted meeting. The Council Chair alone cannot authorize a pay raise. If such a Council meeting did occur, there should be an agenda, minutes, and vote showing this–otherwise, there was a possible Sunshine Law violation.
Tying executive level pay raises to a minimally acceptable level of performance is a basic good business practice. The Council, as leaders of the County, had the opportunity to embrace the practice and set an example for the rest of the County. After the 2008 economic crash, there was another reason to review pay raises, which was non-existent in 2007. In 2009, the Mayor and other appointing authorities such as the Police and Planning Commissions chose not to give raises at a time when most county and private sector workers were either taking pay cuts or losing jobs.
I have requested the above-mentioned documents of both the Administration and Council Services but have not received any of the three documents required for a legal pay raise. The question is, “Do those documents exist?” I do not believe that any Council member serving in 2009 can swear under oath that he or she participated in a meeting in 2009 for which the clerk’s pay raise was on the agenda and that he or she took part in a recorded vote to recommend a $7,000 pay increase for the clerk at a time when other department heads and county workers were foregoing raises. Unless such a meeting occurred, it is my understanding that the pay raise was not properly authorized because there was no Council recommendation for a pay raise. I will certainly apologize publicly if I am wrong.
So far, no documentation has yet been provided to me or anyone else that I am aware of to show a properly authorized pay raise for the County Clerk in 2009.
JoAnn Yukimura, Kaua‘i County Council
