A request of the Mayor, after negotiating a standstill on wage increases for collective bargaining County employees, to suspend the scheduled increase in his salary until 2013 would not seem to an earth shaking matter. But the processes involved in
A request of the Mayor, after negotiating a standstill on wage increases for collective bargaining County employees, to suspend the scheduled increase in his salary until 2013 would not seem to an earth shaking matter. But the processes involved in dealing with this request provide a chilling commentary on County methodology and morality.
Under the County Charter the Salary Commission has the responsibility for initiating changes in compensation for County officers, including the Council, and key employees. The governing Charter provision (Section 29.03) states that its findings shall be adopted by resolution and forwarded to the mayor and the council by March 15. The legislative history of this section establishes that this date was chosen to allow compensation change proposals to be taken into account in the annual budget process. Such changes become effective 60 days after submission unless rejected in whole or in part by the Council.
In 2007 the Salary Commission in an action of dubious legality adopted a schedule of salary increases for the officer and key employee group for a multi-year period. No ruling is known to have been given by the County Attorney’s office as to the lawfulness of the Commission resolution and it was approved by the Council over the prescient objection of then council member Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho who noted that such a schedule could not anticipate economic and other changes that might occur.
As was likely, the multi-year schedule was disrupted in 2009 when economic conditions impelled a moratorium on the last increases. The moratorium continued to July 2011. On July 15th the Mayor wrote the Commission seeking to suspend increases to 2013. Although the Salary Commission had not met in 2011, its Chair hastened to request the Boards and Commissions Administrator to prepare a proposed resolution for the Commission to carry out the Mayor’s request. However, he failed to put the resolution on the agenda for the Commission’s July 26 meeting, but after some amendment it was adopted on August 5th.
It is noteworthy that the Salary Commission resolution included a provision adding the Administrator to the key employee group and one treating it as an amendment of the 2010 resolution .
At the Council, the Salary Commission resolution received a disparate treatment. At its September 7 meeting the Council rejected it, at its September 21 meeting a motion to reconsider was adopted, and at its September 27 meeting rejection failed in an evenly divided vote, leaving uncertainty.
While there may be a general consensus that salary increases for the key employee and officer group should be deferred, the process followed was grossly mishandled.
The performance of John Isobe, the Boards and Commissioners Administrator can be criticized. Although the various Boards and Commissions are intended to be independent of the Council and the administration, Mr. Isobe’s pattern seems to be to carry out the wishes of the Mayor to whom he reports. The members of the various Boards and Commissions are volunteers and may not be adequately informed as to the scope of their duties. The Administrator’s function is to support them and he should have advised the Salary Commission of the March 15 deadline provision contained in Charter Section 29.03 but there is no record he did so. Similarly he should have advised that the request of the Mayor to the Commission should be considered by the Commission before his improperly engaging to draft a self serving resolution which included terms of benefit to him in addition to the content of the Mayor’s request. The Administrator’s function should be limited to support of the Boards and Commission and to exclude attempts to direct their actions.
More serious questions can be raised with the performance of the County Attorney’s office. Al Castillo, the County Attorney, or a deputy did not rule on the legality of the multi-year schedule for increases which is the root cause of the various supplemental problems that have emerged. The ruling of a deputy, which he approved, that the term “shall” as applied to the March 15 deadline was not mandatory has been widely criticized. When a 2010 Salary Commission ruling allowed the Mayor, with council approval, to reduce salaries in the key employee group he remained silent although it was clearly at odds with the Charter. An application was made by a member of the County Council for an advisory opinion by the Board of Ethics as to the propriety of Mr. Isobe’s conduct. Mr. Castillo’s office ruled that the application should be treated as a complaint rather than a ruling request which prevented the applicant from offering public testimony in support of his request. The Castillo ruling was in clear contradiction with the stated intent of the application.
From the foregoing and other incidents it can be readily concluded that Mr. Castillo considers his duty is to serve the wishes of the Mayor whether or not they conform to the law or are in the interests of the county. With this kind of an orientation it is apparent that some change is appropriate. It may be all right for the Mayor to have his attorney, but if that is the case so should the Council and the Boards and Commissions.
A complaint has been filed in the Fifth Circuit by two council members of the Council seeking a declaratory judgment that the 2011 Salary Commission resolution is null and void. While a favorable ruling in this case would revive the salary problems that were attempted to be resolved by the Salary Commission resolution, the complaint seems meritorious and favorable action on it would suitably sanction the abuses occurring in the process.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
