"You say compensation, I say spiking, compensation! spiking ! Let's call the whole thing off"; instead taxpayers get stiffed by Humboldt County unions and special MOUs

In  nutshell, Humboldt County unions won today and Humboldt County taxpayers got the shaft but 50% less thanks to 4 Supervisors, minus one dissenter Supervisor Mark Lovelace. Humboldt County MOUs had the Board of Supervisors locked into some decision despite taxpayer concerns.

When discussion on the agenda item to increase compensation started this morning, Fifth District Supervisor Rex Bohn , who requested that the item be pulled for discussion said, "There is nothing in here stating specifics on what extra work" was being performed by Assistant County Counsel. He said he had received "quite a few phone calls and wanted more clarification."

Mr. Frank DeMarco, Consultant Interim Counsel, repeated what he basically wrote in a letter and said, "this is not an unusual process, and that we are not aware that we are spiking retirement", a concern brought up because the Ms. Ruth is supposed to be retiring by June and if she did, she would retire at the higher salary. No specifics of this extra work were offered.

Supervisor Virginia Bass asked Personnel Director to state policies of the past and he said it is"standard policy in our MOUS to compensate someone working out of class." She asked Mr. Fulks how the amount was determined and echoing the concerns of some other Supervisors about retirement spiking. He then started to say, "there are different types of spiking not allowed by law" and then said, "I won't refer to it by spiking." Mr.Fulks did say PERS does question the type of increase in compensation but that Humboldt County got around it by having written rules that allow such a process. Other counties do not have special rules our MOUs do.

Such MOU special rules benefitted County employees last year who wanted a raise and got a one-time payment instead before Christmas, that was not a "bonus." The rest of the County has people struggling but we wouldn't want County, tenured employees with benefits making any sacrifice.

Then, Supervisor Ryan Sundberg asked if there was another option such as "one time funding" other than the significant bump in compensation for the "extra duties" being performed by Assistant County Counsel Carolyn Ruth who is supposed to retire but that decision is not final or formal, yet.

Mr. Fulks responded, "My concern about one-time funding is the appearance to PERS where spiking is not permitted." So is it "spiking" or not Mr. Fulks?

Supervisor Bohn made a good point that Assistant County Counsel had performed duties when previous County Counsel Wendy Chaitin was not present. "This has sparked some interest. We are getting some phone calls."

Mr. deMarco said, "This is a discretionary act on the part of the Board." CAO Philip Smith-Hanes, Mr. Fulks and Supervisor Mark Lovelace all felt that this was "just routine business." As Supervisor Bohn pointed out that this was asking the County to pay "someone a substantial amount of money for 3 or 4 months" and have lifetime cost increase for retirement and this was "the first time he had seen such a request with so much value." He could not support the long term costs, if Ms. Ruth was not retiring, he would support short-term costs.

Board Chair Estelle Fennell brought up the fact that the increase in compensation for Assistant County Counsel would be "the defacto County Counsel salary" and with Mr. De Marco, the "County would be paying for two County Counsels." Supervisor Sundberg reiterated that fact that in discussion defending this "routine increase", Mr. Hanes "was leaving out the genetleman sitting next to you" referring to Mr. DeMarco.

Supervisors Sundberg and Fennell said that they were trying to be fair to Ms. Ruth but they were also being fair to taxpayers.

Public comment mostly focused on the cost. Supervisor Sundberg suggested compensation at a level that was adequate to the extra work being performed.

Supervisor Lovelace said "he was baffled." He brought politics into the discussion. Anyone who disgareed with him got chastised. At this point, Chair Fennell said, "You brought politics into this, upto now we have had a professional discussion about an unique issue.' She was referring to the fact that this wasn't just an extra increase for an employee doing extra work ; there was also the cost of the Consultant.

At no point could any one answer what these extra duties were other than a vague reference to the budget referred in the agenda.  Ultimately, after two failed motions, Supervisor Bohn comprised with the motion that Supervisor Sundberg had put forth. It was a salary range of 11 instead of 22 with a 50% reduction in cost.

This isn't a simple HR issue. It is about certain department heads wanting a rubber stamp on a substantial amount of money for another department head and being shocked that taxpayers questioned them.

Previous posts:

johnchiv.blogspot.com/2015/02/after-two-motions-failed-on-asst-county.html

johnchiv.blogspot.com/2015/02/asst-county-counsel-compensation-to-be.html