The County Council acted wisely on Nov. 10 to shelve and perhaps scuttle a proposed 14 percent salary increase for 33 top County management personnel including the Mayor at an estimated cost at the annual rate of about $300,000. The
The County Council acted wisely on Nov. 10 to shelve and perhaps scuttle a proposed 14 percent salary increase for 33 top County management personnel including the Mayor at an estimated cost at the annual rate of about $300,000.
The administration did not even appear at the Council hearing to defend or explain its position. The proposal was ill conceived, improperly prosecuted and inadequately justified.
In 1988 the County Charter was amended to provide for a Salary Commission which, among other powers, would recommend the salaries for elected officials other than the Council and county management employees.
Without waiting for the Salary Commission to perform its duties, the administration chose to initiate its own proposal.
When the administration proposal surfaced its justification was stated to be that the Kaua’i economy was improving, tax receipts were increasing and there was an intimation that there would be a budget surplus from which the cost of the increased compensation could be met.
It would, indeed be surprising if County revenues are not growing in the light of the property, gasoline and motor vehicle tax increases which were imposed earlier this year. It may also be true that a surplus may occur, although this will not be known until the report of the independent auditor is issued at the beginning of next year.
However, while the County’s financial position is of some relevance in determining ability to pay, the fundamental considerations which should be examined are whether the compensation being paid is competitive and sufficient to allow the County to obtain and retain the key personnel required and whether such compensation is reasonable in relation to the compensation of the other County personnel.
The answers to these basic questions never emerged during consideration of the proposal.
The Salary Commission may be a flawed vehicle since three of its members are appointed by the Mayor and they cannot necessarily be considered independent.
The method used by major corporations of retaining a firm to review its overall employee compensation structure and after such study to recommend a compensation program for top management is probably a better technique, but the Salary Commission procedure set by law should not have been disregarded.
Compensation increases for the key County personnel should be thoughtfully considered because no increases have been provided them for several years. However, it should be done in the duly established manner with all the appropriate information assembled and without political hype.
It is in our best interests that the County Council should act on the matter after public input and in the light of the overall factors which should properly be applied.
Let us take the right action at the right time and in the right way.
Walter Lewis
